@rigeld2 That's because it's the only basic land with the Arabian Nights symbol, many players used to use Arabian Nights Mountains to pimp their burn/sligh deck.
I'm aware of why it's priced high.
But the argument "But it's expensive! It HAS to be good!" is silly.
The card has huge casual appeal but it's really not a good card.
Yeah, a lot of people also think that if a card doesn't make a showing in Tourneys than somehow that means the card is terrible. It's just an extension of elitism, which everyone is guilty of at some point(s) in their lives, so I always try to remember that when I see someone ragging on a card because it wasn't riding high in the Top Five or something. Understanding is key to productive communication and debate after all.
The truth of the matter is that Vexing Devil is a great card. It isn't going to win games on its own, it isn't a top tier card, but it is still a great card. Red has few ways to control the state of the board in such tricksie ways, the Devil is a spotlight card for that very reason. You should never be playing a Devil for one outcome, always aim for both. No matter which outcome your opponent has picked it was the wrong move and you gained because of it.
The card really isn't that complicated, but people make it out to be something hard to play against. If you can't deal with a 4/3, take the 4 unless you are killing your opponent next turn or taking the 4 puts you in jeopardy of immediately dying to, say, boros charm/bolt/whatever. If you can deal with the 4/3 you just let it's trigger do nothing. People like to say if I use a bolt killing a vexing devil that that's a good thing for the burn player as then their other creatures can stick around, but here's the big issue with that. Trading cards/interacting with burn is how you beat it, otherwise you just lose unless you're a faster deck, which is hard to do. Burn is only a good deck when it doesn't have to interact with the opponents cards and can just do whatever it damn well pleases, that is the best aspect of burn decks. Also, again, draw it on turn 4 or something. Burn does not like lousy topdecks, as there are many instances in burn where you just want to topdeck a flame rift or some burn spell to lethal the opponent. Vexing devil in those situations is awful, as a red mana for suspend 1: you conditionally win the game is a luck based card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
People who think Vexing Devil is bad just havent understood the game.
Your deck must be build to take advantage of the card, whether its aggro such goblin deck or burn deck or disruptive deck or raise dead deck...these are just a couple that just crossed my mind
You dont just put this card in and think that its going to by itself change the whole aspect of your deck
The card really isn't that complicated, but people make it out to be something hard to play against.
It only looks complicated when you have a unchecked 4/3 attacker.
My player circle seemed to hate Vexing Devil because if they absorb the damage they giving me a 1 point burn advantage, if they don't I'm eating their chump blockers.
Burn is only a good deck when it doesn't have to interact with the opponents cards and can just do whatever it damn well pleases, that is the best aspect of burn decks. Also, again, draw it on turn 4 or something. Burn does not like lousy topdecks, as there are many instances in burn where you just want to topdeck a flame rift or some burn spell to lethal the opponent.
I'm not sure how topdecking matters. It's not like we are playing with ball Lightnings, Eron the Relentless, Balduvian Horde, Incinerate and 24+ lands. Therefore we are drawing up more lands per turn. I do think the burn decks are faster...
Vexing devil in those situations is awful, as a red mana for suspend 1: you conditionally win the game is a luck based card.
It's quotes like this that make me roll my eyes... I get it that there are a lot of players that think it's a bad card - but it doesn't explain why the Devils are expensive.
It's quotes like this that make me roll my eyes... I get it that there are a lot of players that think it's a bad card - but it doesn't explain why the Devils are expensive.
For the last time being expensive does not mean it's good, just like being cheap doesn't mean it's bad. It's expensive because of casual appeal, like the reason why Phyrexian Obliterator and Glimpse the Unthinkable are high in price too. It also came from the last set of a block so it was not opened as often so there's less distribution also.
It's quotes like this that make me roll my eyes... I get it that there are a lot of players that think it's a bad card - but it doesn't explain why the Devils are expensive.
For the last time being expensive does not mean it's good,
sorry but you don't have the answer so don't act like it's the answer. I've been playing this game since 1995 when a card is expensive there are reason for it. Phyrexian Obliterator and Glimpse the Unthinkable are not bad cards and they don't get slammed when suggested. Vexing Devil gets slammed everytime the card comes up.
And I don't think being the last pack in a set becomes an issue. Eidolon of the Great Revel has a lot more play and it's from the last set of Theros and the price is slightly cheaper than Vexing Devil.
People who think Vexing Devil is bad just havent understood the game.
Your deck must be build to take advantage of the card, whether its aggro such goblin deck or burn deck or disruptive deck or raise dead deck...these are just a couple that just crossed my mind
You dont just put this card in and think that its going to by itself change the whole aspect of your deck
This card has no business being in a Goblin deck because it's a Devil, not a Goblin, a Burn deck has enough good options at this point to not need a card that's so bad outside of your opening hand, and in a raise dead deck you are just doing a lot of work to get a 4/3 creature that nominally costs 1 but in reality costs substantially more thanks to playing raise deads. If you want to build a fun casual deck, this card has that potential, just don't trick yourself into thinking it's good enough for an optimized list because it isn't at the moment. But maybe something get's printed that makes him less awful past turn 2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That was pretty interesting. But dropping a warship on me is cheating. Take it back!
As I've said in the past, the Devil is a great card. Don't ever let anyone fool you into thinking it's sub-optimal or wasteful past T1. The fact that the card is popular amoungst the casual scene isn't a strike against the card either.
When you put the Devil in your deck, understand that a T1/T2 play is the most optimal use of the card, but that the card has impact past that point as well. Red lacks some serious control methods, the Devil being one of the few and effective pieces. Always cast a Devil with the intention that both outcomes are beneficial to you and harmful to your opponent.
I've never liked the statement that the Devil is "It's a burn spell when you want a creature and a creature when you want a burn spell." If that is the honest mind-set of people going into the game using this card, then I implore you to reconsider and look at the card as a whole, not mere splinters of itself. The card is simultaneous a creature & a burn spell, never play it for only one or the other. The Devil is a control card, in the fashion of Red, and you need to understand this in order to play the card effectively.
Opponent takes the damage? Then you should have a repertoire of spells ready to capitalize on their minus four life total.
Opponent lets it resolve? You have a 4/3 beater/blocker and your opponent has extra board presence to contend with. If they exile it, waste a spell to counter it, or block it with a creature; congratulations the Devil has served it's purpose.
Never play the Devil as a straight one-of. The card is tricksie and false, you need to take advantage of the complexity of the card. This thread alone should be a good indicator of how many people undervalue and overlook the Devil.
As I've said in the past, the Devil is a great card. Don't ever let anyone fool you into thinking it's sub-optimal or wasteful past T1. The fact that the card is popular amoungst the casual scene isn't a strike against the card either.
I'm beginning to think there is an underground fanbase for the card; I'm pleased to see that I'm not alone with my feelings aobut the card. Though spending 8 to 10 dollars would be a justified buy?
I've never liked the statement that the Devil is "It's a burn spell when you want a creature and a creature when you want a burn spell." If that is the honest mind-set of people going into the game using this card, then I implore you to reconsider and look at the card as a whole, not mere splinters of itself. The card is simultaneous a creature & a burn spell, never play it for only one or the other. The Devil is a control card, in the fashion of Red, and you need to understand this in order to play the card effectively.
Agree. I've always saw the devil as a 4/3 creature for 1 red mana and it's downside (or balance because the creature has 4 power for 1 red mana) is the option the oponent has to remove it (with a cost of 4 damage). Maybe it's because I always saw the devil as a creature and when it does come into play he's a creature.
Never play the Devil as a straight one-of. The card is tricksie and false, you need to take advantage of the complexity of the card. This thread alone should be a good indicator of how many people undervalue and overlook the Devil.
I've been playing this game since 1995 when a card is expensive there are reason for it.
We've explained the reasoning, you're just refusing to accept it.
It has extremely strong casual appeal. It has been tested and just is not a strong competitive card.
Context is important. Oblit gets slammed as a suggestion outside of G/B rock decks. Glimpse doesn't even warrant mentioning outside of Mill.
Devil is only brought up in the context of burn and he's simply bad there. He's being played in Bushwhacker Zoo (for now) as another way to evolve E1.
And I don't think being the last pack in a set becomes an issue. Eidolon of the Great Revel has a lot more play and it's from the last set of Theros and the price is slightly cheaper than Vexing Devil.
Theros was also printed more than AVR. Eidolon has the opposite appeal that Vexing does - people who like to play Vexing typically don't like taking damage from their own stuff.
ROFL think of it as a creature when it can die immediately to someone paying 4 life. I guess it's a creature in the context of bridge from below and similar cards that care about sacrifice and enter the battlefield triggers, but in a burn deck these type of cards are nonexistent. Tried to explain to you why the card is in fact bad, but choosing to not understand just points to stubborness so I'm done.
Phyrexian obliterator in a deck that can cast it is a fine card, but those decks are super limited with its mana cost. Glimpse the unthinkable as well as most mill cards are awful because mill actually does nothing until the milled player tries to draw a card from an empty library.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
We've explained the reasoning, you're just refusing to accept it.
It has extremely strong casual appeal. It has been tested and just is not a strong competitive card.
The intent of the thread is not be shout down by assumed answers. I hear enough crap from other 'experts' on Modern/Legacy.
Sorry, but I don't see this strong casual appeal. I'm noticing a little love for the card on this thread but not enough to warrent a 8 to 10 dollar price tag.
Context is important. Oblit gets slammed as a suggestion outside of G/B rock decks. Glimpse doesn't even warrant mentioning outside of Mill.
It seemed more closer to disrailment. Glimps was a big card for years, it was mostly used for graveyard triggers and underground tutor; I bet if I dig deeper I'll find a few combo decks that are using Glimps. As for Phyrexian, its was an insane card and a mystic. If I wanted to talk about those cards I would had posted a thread.
Devil is only brought up in the context of burn and he's simply bad there. He's being played in Bushwhacker Zoo (for now) as another way to evolve E1.
I would never had known Bushwhacker Zoo (but thanks for a few earlier replies it did open my eyes). Is Bushwhacker that big?
It does look like that Vexing Devil is playabe in Modern, at least in a 3 color sligh type deck.
Theros was also printed more than AVR.
Do you have actual numbers to support this?
Eidolon has the opposite appeal that Vexing does - people who like to play Vexing typically don't like taking damage from their own stuff.
I'm not sure what does this mean or what are you implying. Are you representing the nature of the vexing devil player? Eidolon has became a burn staple almost over night. I do play burn. Goblin Guide, Vexing Devil and Eidolon are in it. I've been looking into playing a mono-red modern verson and I had not found enough players to support this idea or even work away from the modern 3 color burn deck.
We've explained the reasoning, you're just refusing to accept it.
It has extremely strong casual appeal. It has been tested and just is not a strong competitive card.
The intent of the thread is not be shout down by assumed answers. I hear enough crap from other 'experts' on Modern/Legacy.
Sorry, but I don't see this strong casual appeal. I'm noticing a little love for the card on this thread but not enough to warrent a 8 to 10 dollar price tag.
They're not assumed answers. They're answers given by people who have done testing or have looked at results. Or, in my case, both.
Context is important. Oblit gets slammed as a suggestion outside of G/B rock decks. Glimpse doesn't even warrant mentioning outside of Mill.
It seemed more closer to disrailment. Glimps was a big card for years, it was mostly used for graveyard triggers and underground tutor; I bet if I dig deeper I'll find a few combo decks that are using Glimps. As for Phyrexian, its was an insane card and a mystic. If I wanted to talk about those cards I would had posted a thread.
You brought them up.
Devil is only brought up in the context of burn and he's simply bad there. He's being played in Bushwhacker Zoo (for now) as another way to evolve E1.
I would never had known Bushwhacker Zoo (but thanks for a few earlier replies it did open my eyes). Is Bushwhacker that big?
In Modern it's definitely a Tier 2 or 1.5.
It does look like that Vexing Devil is playabe in Modern, at least in a 3 color sligh type deck.
Many Bushwhacker players are phasing him out because other than evolving E1 he's not that good.
Theros was also printed more than AVR.
Do you have actual numbers to support this?
Only that the game keeps getting bigger and there were quite a few sets/blocks between them.
Eidolon has the opposite appeal that Vexing does - people who like to play Vexing typically don't like taking damage from their own stuff.
I'm not sure what does this mean or what are you implying. Are you representing the nature of the vexing devil player? Eidolon has became a burn staple almost over night. I do play burn. Goblin Guide, Vexing Devil and Eidolon are in it. I've been looking into playing a mono-red modern verson and I had not found enough players to support this idea or even work away from the modern 3 color burn deck.
[/quote]
Eidolon was a burn staple overnight because it's that good and it survived testing. Devil isn't that good and didn't survive testing.
You're acting like it's a universal truth that Devil is better than other burn cards - what cards are you taking out to fit your playset of Devils into a burn deck?
I think all the Pros and Grinders who have played Legacy and Modern Burn are just plain old stupid. Staschy is really onto something and is definitely much smarter than them. Plus, these people never play test, while Staschy's theorizing on a card that he doesn't even own is much more valuable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
They're not assumed answers. They're answers given by people who have done testing or have looked at results. Or, in my case, both.
There is no factual numbers - it's all assumed. Even the answer you gave is assumed.
You brought them up.
Another poster brought them up and I was responding to them and you added from the reply. I think its too much of a derailment of the thread to talk about other cards.
In Modern it's definitely a Tier 2 or 1.5.
Yeah, good but not that good... The question is why is the card expensive and Tier 2 or 1.5 is not a high demand for the card.
Only that the game keeps getting bigger and there were quite a few sets/blocks between them.
Sorry, this answer means almost nothing than the first answer you posted. Numbers or no numbers.
Eidolon was a burn staple overnight because it's that good and it survived testing.
Eidolon was tested before Eidolon existed. Pyrostatic Pillar burn decks were around for years; Eidolon makes those decks better because they have legs. There was no real testing when Eidolon came out, players that played with Pyrostatic Pillar knew Eidolon was going to be awesome. All you need to look at the early burn decks that were played upon Eidolon's release.
Devil isn't that good and didn't survive testing.
I'm not sure. Most of the opinion of the Devil mirror the Browbeat argument. I'm not even sure if the card was playtested because the players that hate the card say things that make no sense. It becomes a burn spell when I want a creature? How does that work? How does 4 damage to the opponent works as an advange to the opponent while I need to cast a creature to block? Would casting Gobling Guide/Swiftspear do any better in this situation?
You're acting like it's a universal truth that Devil is better than other burn cards - what cards are you taking out to fit your play-set of Devils into a burn deck?
The only thing I noticed that a play-set of Vexing Devils is going to cost me 40 dollars. So it has to be a good card somewhere (besides casual player demand)
I'm not playing swiftspear in legacy.
I'm looking to play modern mono-red burn/sligh. I'm not sure about the tier spot or care about the tier spot... I'm courious about the vexing devil popularity because it seemed underground.
People who think Vexing Devil is bad just havent understood the game.
Your deck must be build to take advantage of the card, whether its aggro such goblin deck or burn deck or disruptive deck or raise dead deck...these are just a couple that just crossed my mind
You dont just put this card in and think that its going to by itself change the whole aspect of your deck
This card has no business being in a Goblin deck because it's a Devil, not a Goblin, a Burn deck has enough good options at this point to not need a card that's so bad outside of your opening hand, and in a raise dead deck you are just doing a lot of work to get a 4/3 creature that nominally costs 1 but in reality costs substantially more thanks to playing raise deads. If you want to build a fun casual deck, this card has that potential, just don't trick yourself into thinking it's good enough for an optimized list because it isn't at the moment. But maybe something get's printed that makes him less awful past turn 2.
Read the first line again...
Yore reasonning implies that any creature with 1 casting cost is bad
As for a goblin deck, not the casual goblin deck but you probably wouldnt like to see goblins grenade and Vexing devil teaming up together.
To the OP, you will never get hard data as to why the card is priced the way it is because no one has perfect information on the "economy." The best you can hope for is an answer (or multiple answers) based on inductive reasoning, which many have given you. If you want the holy grail, you're more than welcome to keep tilting at windmills, but I surmise that you just want some sort of validation. Even your title is leading. I mean a cursory search for lists that play Vexing Devil would've made a large portion of this thread irrelevant. It gets played. It just doesn't get played everywhere or nearly as much as other cards in the Zoo and Burn archetypes. Why that is? Who knows. If you want to know more about who plays it elsewhere (EDH, casual, cube, etc), you should probably ask a better question.
They're not assumed answers. They're answers given by people who have done testing or have looked at results. Or, in my case, both.
There is no factual numbers - it's all assumed. Even the answer you gave is assumed.
I assumed that I have done testing and looked at results?
No, I factually did testing and looked at results. Vexing Devil consistently gave slower goldfishing overall and felt worse every time I drew it in actual matches.
My testing experience has been backed up by hundreds of other people.
But no, I'm just assuming things. I'd give you my testing numbers but I threw them out a couple of years ago.
In Modern it's definitely a Tier 2 or 1.5.
Yeah, good but not that good... The question is why is the card expensive and Tier 2 or 1.5 is not a high demand for the card.
No one can give you the ultimate answer, especially since you're not accepting the answers that have been given.
It's likely because of the huge casual appeal. It is not because the card is strong compared to other potential cards.
Only that the game keeps getting bigger and there were quite a few sets/blocks between them.
Sorry, this answer means almost nothing than the first answer you posted. Numbers or no numbers.
Well, you can believe it or not, but thinking that Wizards hasn't increased print runs in 4 years is pretty naive at best.
Eidolon was a burn staple overnight because it's that good and it survived testing.
Eidolon was tested before Eidolon existed. Pyrostatic Pillar burn decks were around for years; Eidolon makes those decks better because they have legs. There was no real testing when Eidolon came out, players that played with Pyrostatic Pillar knew Eidolon was going to be awesome. All you need to look at the early burn decks that were played upon Eidolon's release.
I'm sorry, isn't your mantra "Numbers or no numbers."? Where are the numbers to support your statement?
Looking at mtgtop prior to Eidolon being printed there were exactly 3 decks playing Pillar. I'm too lazy to go find the burn thread that got locked and archived to see conversations around it, but please provide evidence to support your assertions.
Devil isn't that good and didn't survive testing.
I'm not sure. Most of the opinion of the Devil mirror the Browbeat argument. I'm not even sure if the card was playtested because the players that hate the card say things that make no sense. It becomes a burn spell when I want a creature? How does that work? How does 4 damage to the opponent works as an advange to the opponent while I need to cast a creature to block? Would casting Gobling Guide/Swiftspear do any better in this situation?
Your opponent is at 3 and has a 5/6 Goyf out. You're in top deck mode with no creatures and 5 life. You draw a Devil. You've just given your opponent another draw step to survive and potentially gain life out of this position.
Devil won't replace Guide, Swifty, or Eidolon. It likely won't replace Grim Lavamancer. So at this point it has to replace a spell, and it's just worse than any instant/sorcery you could put in the deck.
You're acting like it's a universal truth that Devil is better than other burn cards - what cards are you taking out to fit your play-set of Devils into a burn deck?
The only thing I noticed that a play-set of Vexing Devils is going to cost me 40 dollars. So it has to be a good card somewhere (besides casual player demand)
Why do you think the underlined isn't enough to support the price of a card? What evidence do you have?
I'm not playing swiftspear in legacy.
Why not? It's an amazing card. Significantly better than Devil.
I'm looking to play modern mono-red burn/sligh. I'm not sure about the tier spot or care about the tier spot... I'm courious about the vexing devil popularity because it seemed underground.
Everybody thinks it's a good card. And then they test it and either refuse to accept the results or get annoyed that the results don't match expectation.
"Your opponent is at 3 and has a 5/6 Goyf out. You're in top deck mode with no creatures and 5 life. You draw a Devil. You've just given your opponent another draw step to survive and potentially gain life out of this position.
Devil won't replace Guide, Swifty, or Eidolon. It likely won't replace Grim Lavamancer. So at this point it has to replace a spell, and it's just worse than any instant/sorcery you could put in the deck"
I haven't read the entire thread to be frank, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but in your example given here, drawing a guide, swiftspear, or and eidolon instead of devil gives you no advantage more than devil does, in fact probably less. because they would get their next turn either way, so you are better off having a 4/3 on the board than a 2/2, or a 1/2. Frankly none of those are good in this situation because all of them turn into a chump blocker. Unless the argument is to have more burn spells, the only card better to have in that situation is grim lavamancer, if we are talking creatures. now I have personally never owned a goblin guide so I cant speak for it, but having played all the others I prefer devil over the other 3, personally, but then again when I build burn type decks I'm not net decking it, just playing the cards I have, and vexing devil has never given me any problems. I'm always happy with the decision my opponent makes on it.
Your opponent is at 3 and has a 5/6 Goyf out. You're in top deck mode with no creatures and 5 life. You draw a Devil. You've just given your opponent another draw step to survive and potentially gain life out of this position.
Lets omit the devil and look at this argument with Goblin Guide and Swiftspear. I draw a Goblin Guide - Oh, the opponent is down 1 life. I draw a Swiftspear - the opponent is down 2 life. And If I used them as a chump blocker - I'm still giving my opponent another draw step.
Why not? It's an amazing card. Significantly better than Devil.
I wish swiftspear was that amazing. The devil deals more damage without me worrying about casting spells.
Everybody thinks it's a good card. And then they test it and either refuse to accept the results or get annoyed that the results don't match expectation.
I'm ok if nobody wants to play with the card, I just don't see the logic in spending 8 to 10 dollars for a card that everybody says it sucks.
To the OP, you will never get hard data as to why the card is priced the way it is because no one has perfect information on the "economy." The best you can hope for is an answer (or multiple answers) based on inductive reasoning, which many have given you. If you want the holy grail, you're more than welcome to keep tilting at windmills, but I surmise that you just want some sort of validation. Even your title is leading. I mean a cursory search for lists that play Vexing Devil would've made a large portion of this thread irrelevant. It gets played. It just doesn't get played everywhere or nearly as much as other cards in the Zoo and Burn archetypes. Why that is? Who knows. If you want to know more about who plays it elsewhere (EDH, casual, cube, etc), you should probably ask a better question.
Sorry but I don't feel like reading angry spikes replies calling me an idiot. Over here I have a little control with the topic.
"Your opponent is at 3 and has a 5/6 Goyf out. You're in top deck mode with no creatures and 5 life. You draw a Devil. You've just given your opponent another draw step to survive and potentially gain life out of this position.
Devil won't replace Guide, Swifty, or Eidolon. It likely won't replace Grim Lavamancer. So at this point it has to replace a spell, and it's just worse than any instant/sorcery you could put in the deck"
I haven't read the entire thread to be frank, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but in your example given here, drawing a guide, swiftspear, or and eidolon instead of devil gives you no advantage more than devil does, in fact probably less. because they would get their next turn either way, so you are better off having a 4/3 on the board than a 2/2, or a 1/2. Frankly none of those are good in this situation because all of them turn into a chump blocker. Unless the argument is to have more burn spells, the only card better to have in that situation is grim lavamancer, if we are talking creatures. now I have personally never owned a goblin guide so I cant speak for it, but having played all the others I prefer devil over the other 3, personally, but then again when I build burn type decks I'm not net decking it, just playing the cards I have, and vexing devil has never given me any problems. I'm always happy with the decision my opponent makes on it.
Devil isn't better than Guide or Swiftspear though - a creature without haste that has no evasion is just not good for a burn deck.
It'd have to replace a spell. And pretty much any burn spell wins the game in the scenario I posted.
Your opponent is at 3 and has a 5/6 Goyf out. You're in top deck mode with no creatures and 5 life. You draw a Devil. You've just given your opponent another draw step to survive and potentially gain life out of this position.
Lets omit the devil and look at this argument with Goblin Guide and Swiftspear. I draw a Goblin Guide - Oh, the opponent is down 1 life. I draw a Swiftspear - the opponent is down 2 life. And If I used them as a chump blocker - I'm still giving my opponent another draw step.
Except Devil isn't better than either of those creatures. So it wouldn't replace those. It would replace a burn spell, any of which win that game.
Burn decks only have room for 12-14 creatures. Guide, Swiftspear, Eidolon is 12, some decks add in 2 Grim Lavamancer for late game reach.
Why not? It's an amazing card. Significantly better than Devil.
I wish swiftspear was that amazing. The devil deals more damage without me worrying about casting spells.
... You mean without you worrying about literally the exact thing a burn deck wants to be doing?
Yeah, no. Swiftspear is significantly better than Devil. It's not even a question. It's been tested.
I'm ok if nobody wants to play with the card, I just don't see the logic in spending 8 to 10 dollars for a card that everybody says it sucks.
Then don't buy it. But don't argue with people who have tested it and found it lacking, calling their statements into question, and telling them they're going off of assumptions.
Proxy it and test it.
The only thing Vexing about VD is the BIGOTRY and CONSPIRACY the spike wannabes who are jealous of its power.
4/3 for 1 mana is UNPARALLELED in MtG.
4 damage for 1 mana is UNPARALLED in MtG.
(Swiftspear has 1 power and no ETB. It will NEVER do more than 4dmg.)
Both in 1 card is UNMATCHED VALUE.
It combos in DEEP MIND GAMES where good player can ALWAYS make opponents choose deadwrong.
The real question is why is the red creature with the highest power:CMC IN THE GAME prices SO LOW? And why are the spikes hiding its CONSISTENT TOURNEY RESULTS?
Then don't buy it. But don't argue with people who have tested it and found it lacking, calling their statements into question, and telling them they're going off of assumptions.
Proxy it and test it.
The argument is on your end. I'm ok that nobody plays with Vexing Devil. According to people like you, only an idiot would play Vexing Devil. I want to buy a second play-set but I cannot find the justification in buying a second play-set when players like you say the card sucks. I would expect such card be worth 1 dollar or even less.
This is not a printing issue.
I do think (or starting to believe) there is an underground love for the card. If that's true than maybe I can find justification in buying the card. You don't have to respond but if you going to talk about play examples can you please stop thinking inside a win/loss vacuum - if we did that with every card nothing would be pick.
As for Swiftspaer. The most damage you can get is 5 in 3 swings. Vexing Devil deals 8 in 3 swings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
boo
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm aware of why it's priced high.
But the argument "But it's expensive! It HAS to be good!" is silly.
The card has huge casual appeal but it's really not a good card.
edit: I accidentally a word.
The truth of the matter is that Vexing Devil is a great card. It isn't going to win games on its own, it isn't a top tier card, but it is still a great card. Red has few ways to control the state of the board in such tricksie ways, the Devil is a spotlight card for that very reason. You should never be playing a Devil for one outcome, always aim for both. No matter which outcome your opponent has picked it was the wrong move and you gained because of it.
Currently Playing:
Retired
Your deck must be build to take advantage of the card, whether its aggro such goblin deck or burn deck or disruptive deck or raise dead deck...these are just a couple that just crossed my mind
You dont just put this card in and think that its going to by itself change the whole aspect of your deck
It only looks complicated when you have a unchecked 4/3 attacker.
My player circle seemed to hate Vexing Devil because if they absorb the damage they giving me a 1 point burn advantage, if they don't I'm eating their chump blockers.
I'm not sure how topdecking matters. It's not like we are playing with ball Lightnings, Eron the Relentless, Balduvian Horde, Incinerate and 24+ lands. Therefore we are drawing up more lands per turn. I do think the burn decks are faster...
It's quotes like this that make me roll my eyes... I get it that there are a lot of players that think it's a bad card - but it doesn't explain why the Devils are expensive.
For the last time being expensive does not mean it's good, just like being cheap doesn't mean it's bad. It's expensive because of casual appeal, like the reason why Phyrexian Obliterator and Glimpse the Unthinkable are high in price too. It also came from the last set of a block so it was not opened as often so there's less distribution also.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
sorry but you don't have the answer so don't act like it's the answer. I've been playing this game since 1995 when a card is expensive there are reason for it. Phyrexian Obliterator and Glimpse the Unthinkable are not bad cards and they don't get slammed when suggested. Vexing Devil gets slammed everytime the card comes up.
And I don't think being the last pack in a set becomes an issue. Eidolon of the Great Revel has a lot more play and it's from the last set of Theros and the price is slightly cheaper than Vexing Devil.
This card has no business being in a Goblin deck because it's a Devil, not a Goblin, a Burn deck has enough good options at this point to not need a card that's so bad outside of your opening hand, and in a raise dead deck you are just doing a lot of work to get a 4/3 creature that nominally costs 1 but in reality costs substantially more thanks to playing raise deads. If you want to build a fun casual deck, this card has that potential, just don't trick yourself into thinking it's good enough for an optimized list because it isn't at the moment. But maybe something get's printed that makes him less awful past turn 2.
When you put the Devil in your deck, understand that a T1/T2 play is the most optimal use of the card, but that the card has impact past that point as well. Red lacks some serious control methods, the Devil being one of the few and effective pieces. Always cast a Devil with the intention that both outcomes are beneficial to you and harmful to your opponent.
I've never liked the statement that the Devil is "It's a burn spell when you want a creature and a creature when you want a burn spell." If that is the honest mind-set of people going into the game using this card, then I implore you to reconsider and look at the card as a whole, not mere splinters of itself. The card is simultaneous a creature & a burn spell, never play it for only one or the other. The Devil is a control card, in the fashion of Red, and you need to understand this in order to play the card effectively.
Opponent takes the damage? Then you should have a repertoire of spells ready to capitalize on their minus four life total.
Opponent lets it resolve? You have a 4/3 beater/blocker and your opponent has extra board presence to contend with. If they exile it, waste a spell to counter it, or block it with a creature; congratulations the Devil has served it's purpose.
Never play the Devil as a straight one-of. The card is tricksie and false, you need to take advantage of the complexity of the card. This thread alone should be a good indicator of how many people undervalue and overlook the Devil.
Cheers!
I'm beginning to think there is an underground fanbase for the card; I'm pleased to see that I'm not alone with my feelings aobut the card. Though spending 8 to 10 dollars would be a justified buy?
Agree. I've always saw the devil as a 4/3 creature for 1 red mana and it's downside (or balance because the creature has 4 power for 1 red mana) is the option the oponent has to remove it (with a cost of 4 damage). Maybe it's because I always saw the devil as a creature and when it does come into play he's a creature.
Thanks...
We've explained the reasoning, you're just refusing to accept it.
It has extremely strong casual appeal. It has been tested and just is not a strong competitive card.
Context is important. Oblit gets slammed as a suggestion outside of G/B rock decks. Glimpse doesn't even warrant mentioning outside of Mill.
Devil is only brought up in the context of burn and he's simply bad there. He's being played in Bushwhacker Zoo (for now) as another way to evolve E1.
Theros was also printed more than AVR. Eidolon has the opposite appeal that Vexing does - people who like to play Vexing typically don't like taking damage from their own stuff.
Phyrexian obliterator in a deck that can cast it is a fine card, but those decks are super limited with its mana cost. Glimpse the unthinkable as well as most mill cards are awful because mill actually does nothing until the milled player tries to draw a card from an empty library.
Currently Playing:
Retired
The intent of the thread is not be shout down by assumed answers. I hear enough crap from other 'experts' on Modern/Legacy.
Sorry, but I don't see this strong casual appeal. I'm noticing a little love for the card on this thread but not enough to warrent a 8 to 10 dollar price tag.
It seemed more closer to disrailment. Glimps was a big card for years, it was mostly used for graveyard triggers and underground tutor; I bet if I dig deeper I'll find a few combo decks that are using Glimps. As for Phyrexian, its was an insane card and a mystic. If I wanted to talk about those cards I would had posted a thread.
I would never had known Bushwhacker Zoo (but thanks for a few earlier replies it did open my eyes). Is Bushwhacker that big?
It does look like that Vexing Devil is playabe in Modern, at least in a 3 color sligh type deck.
Do you have actual numbers to support this?
I'm not sure what does this mean or what are you implying. Are you representing the nature of the vexing devil player? Eidolon has became a burn staple almost over night. I do play burn. Goblin Guide, Vexing Devil and Eidolon are in it. I've been looking into playing a mono-red modern verson and I had not found enough players to support this idea or even work away from the modern 3 color burn deck.
They're not assumed answers. They're answers given by people who have done testing or have looked at results. Or, in my case, both.
You brought them up.
In Modern it's definitely a Tier 2 or 1.5.
Many Bushwhacker players are phasing him out because other than evolving E1 he's not that good.
Only that the game keeps getting bigger and there were quite a few sets/blocks between them.
[/quote]
Eidolon was a burn staple overnight because it's that good and it survived testing. Devil isn't that good and didn't survive testing.
You're acting like it's a universal truth that Devil is better than other burn cards - what cards are you taking out to fit your playset of Devils into a burn deck?
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)There is no factual numbers - it's all assumed. Even the answer you gave is assumed.
Another poster brought them up and I was responding to them and you added from the reply. I think its too much of a derailment of the thread to talk about other cards.
Yeah, good but not that good... The question is why is the card expensive and Tier 2 or 1.5 is not a high demand for the card.
Sorry, this answer means almost nothing than the first answer you posted. Numbers or no numbers.
Eidolon was tested before Eidolon existed. Pyrostatic Pillar burn decks were around for years; Eidolon makes those decks better because they have legs. There was no real testing when Eidolon came out, players that played with Pyrostatic Pillar knew Eidolon was going to be awesome. All you need to look at the early burn decks that were played upon Eidolon's release.
I'm not sure. Most of the opinion of the Devil mirror the Browbeat argument. I'm not even sure if the card was playtested because the players that hate the card say things that make no sense. It becomes a burn spell when I want a creature? How does that work? How does 4 damage to the opponent works as an advange to the opponent while I need to cast a creature to block? Would casting Gobling Guide/Swiftspear do any better in this situation?
The only thing I noticed that a play-set of Vexing Devils is going to cost me 40 dollars. So it has to be a good card somewhere (besides casual player demand)
I'm not playing swiftspear in legacy.
I'm looking to play modern mono-red burn/sligh. I'm not sure about the tier spot or care about the tier spot... I'm courious about the vexing devil popularity because it seemed underground.
Read the first line again...
Yore reasonning implies that any creature with 1 casting cost is bad
As for a goblin deck, not the casual goblin deck but you probably wouldnt like to see goblins grenade and Vexing devil teaming up together.
I assumed that I have done testing and looked at results?
No, I factually did testing and looked at results. Vexing Devil consistently gave slower goldfishing overall and felt worse every time I drew it in actual matches.
My testing experience has been backed up by hundreds of other people.
But no, I'm just assuming things. I'd give you my testing numbers but I threw them out a couple of years ago.
No one can give you the ultimate answer, especially since you're not accepting the answers that have been given.
It's likely because of the huge casual appeal. It is not because the card is strong compared to other potential cards.
Well, you can believe it or not, but thinking that Wizards hasn't increased print runs in 4 years is pretty naive at best.
I'm sorry, isn't your mantra "Numbers or no numbers."? Where are the numbers to support your statement?
Looking at mtgtop prior to Eidolon being printed there were exactly 3 decks playing Pillar. I'm too lazy to go find the burn thread that got locked and archived to see conversations around it, but please provide evidence to support your assertions.
Your opponent is at 3 and has a 5/6 Goyf out. You're in top deck mode with no creatures and 5 life. You draw a Devil. You've just given your opponent another draw step to survive and potentially gain life out of this position.
Devil won't replace Guide, Swifty, or Eidolon. It likely won't replace Grim Lavamancer. So at this point it has to replace a spell, and it's just worse than any instant/sorcery you could put in the deck.
Why do you think the underlined isn't enough to support the price of a card? What evidence do you have?
Why not? It's an amazing card. Significantly better than Devil.
Everybody thinks it's a good card. And then they test it and either refuse to accept the results or get annoyed that the results don't match expectation.
Devil won't replace Guide, Swifty, or Eidolon. It likely won't replace Grim Lavamancer. So at this point it has to replace a spell, and it's just worse than any instant/sorcery you could put in the deck"
I haven't read the entire thread to be frank, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but in your example given here, drawing a guide, swiftspear, or and eidolon instead of devil gives you no advantage more than devil does, in fact probably less. because they would get their next turn either way, so you are better off having a 4/3 on the board than a 2/2, or a 1/2. Frankly none of those are good in this situation because all of them turn into a chump blocker. Unless the argument is to have more burn spells, the only card better to have in that situation is grim lavamancer, if we are talking creatures. now I have personally never owned a goblin guide so I cant speak for it, but having played all the others I prefer devil over the other 3, personally, but then again when I build burn type decks I'm not net decking it, just playing the cards I have, and vexing devil has never given me any problems. I'm always happy with the decision my opponent makes on it.
Lets omit the devil and look at this argument with Goblin Guide and Swiftspear. I draw a Goblin Guide - Oh, the opponent is down 1 life. I draw a Swiftspear - the opponent is down 2 life. And If I used them as a chump blocker - I'm still giving my opponent another draw step.
I wish swiftspear was that amazing. The devil deals more damage without me worrying about casting spells.
I'm ok if nobody wants to play with the card, I just don't see the logic in spending 8 to 10 dollars for a card that everybody says it sucks.
Sorry but I don't feel like reading angry spikes replies calling me an idiot. Over here I have a little control with the topic.
Devil isn't better than Guide or Swiftspear though - a creature without haste that has no evasion is just not good for a burn deck.
It'd have to replace a spell. And pretty much any burn spell wins the game in the scenario I posted.
Except Devil isn't better than either of those creatures. So it wouldn't replace those. It would replace a burn spell, any of which win that game.
Burn decks only have room for 12-14 creatures. Guide, Swiftspear, Eidolon is 12, some decks add in 2 Grim Lavamancer for late game reach.
... You mean without you worrying about literally the exact thing a burn deck wants to be doing?
Yeah, no. Swiftspear is significantly better than Devil. It's not even a question. It's been tested.
Then don't buy it. But don't argue with people who have tested it and found it lacking, calling their statements into question, and telling them they're going off of assumptions.
Proxy it and test it.
4/3 for 1 mana is UNPARALLELED in MtG.
4 damage for 1 mana is UNPARALLED in MtG.
(Swiftspear has 1 power and no ETB. It will NEVER do more than 4dmg.)
Both in 1 card is UNMATCHED VALUE.
It combos in DEEP MIND GAMES where good player can ALWAYS make opponents choose dead wrong.
The real question is why is the red creature with the highest power:CMC IN THE GAME prices SO LOW? And why are the spikes hiding its CONSISTENT TOURNEY RESULTS?
ITT some people even believe Browbeat or Steam Augury are bad.
sad.
The argument is on your end. I'm ok that nobody plays with Vexing Devil. According to people like you, only an idiot would play Vexing Devil. I want to buy a second play-set but I cannot find the justification in buying a second play-set when players like you say the card sucks. I would expect such card be worth 1 dollar or even less.
This is not a printing issue.
I do think (or starting to believe) there is an underground love for the card. If that's true than maybe I can find justification in buying the card. You don't have to respond but if you going to talk about play examples can you please stop thinking inside a win/loss vacuum - if we did that with every card nothing would be pick.
As for Swiftspaer. The most damage you can get is 5 in 3 swings. Vexing Devil deals 8 in 3 swings.