Such is the nature of probability. People win the lottery too even though the odds are extremely low. Doesn't mean I'm going to quit my job and bank on winning.
Eh, they both ask for and die to the same removal. If not removed, with the same curve, Chandra will likely flip and do more damage in the next turn than Prodder over a few. I like the look of Prodder, but (without testing) I would believe Chandra to be generally better. Although
Reckless Waif saw some play, I'm willing to give the Messenger a try. She was super cute though, I totally expect the Messenger to be a disappointment in that regard.
Edit: I remember the Waif being a sad top-deck. This guy could be a bit better in that situation. I will like him after a board wipe.
FuumaShirou: no, it is easy to misunderstand but cards like Collateral Damage that say "a something" instead of "target something" are not targeting that something. I believe 114.9a is the relevant rule concerning this. It's the same reason why Crackling Doom can "target" Thunderbreak Regent without the opponent taking 3 damage from the dragon. Also relevant is the fact that Zada, Hedron Grinder mentions "targeting only Zada" - even if Collateral Damage said "Sacrifice target creature. Collateral Damage deals 3 damage to another target creature or player", the fact that it would have two targets would make it not trigger Zada's ability.
After some testing with the Avaricious Dragon in the Big Red deck posted a while back, I have formed the opinion that they can and maybe should replace the two Outpost Sieges in the sideboard. This deck doesn't always want to empty the hand out, leading to some pretty awkward situations with the Dragon.
I have not formed a strong opinion regarding Phoenix vs Outburst yet, but it is leaning on the Outburst so far. The Phoenixes can be crazy good sometimes, but I feel like the three tokens open a few different lines of play.
FuumaShirou: there is no Zada + Collateral Damage combo, IronPlushy made a small mistake there.
I'm willing to keep the Outbursts and Sieges in the main for a while (before trying Flamewake Phoenix and Avaricious Dragon which I like) to see how relevant it is to spread the risk. Siege is less vulnerable to removal and like Efro mentioned it could be a finisher, with haste too (a case in which the Outbursts help). I don't really like the fourth Siege on the sideboard, but considering the Dragons mode maybe I should.
Nevelo, have you tested running 4 Zurgos? How did it feel? I'm uncomfortable with it especially against savvy opponents who will use removal on other creatures, but I've been seeing many lists running 4 and it's true that I'd like to drop him turn one as often as possible.
Don't think of Dragonmaster Outcast as a one-drop (and therefore faster than Whisperer), you certainly do not want to play him turn 1. Jeskai didn't mean to play him turn 1 either, but rather as a late(r)-game threat, possibly brought back from the yard by Ojutai's Command, preferably on the opponent's end step. It becomes a 1CMC threat that demands expensive removal, putting them ahead on mana. It doesn't demand removal and is pretty lackluster as a vanilla 1CMC 1/1 during the stages in which our decks try to operate.
There is a 12% chance you will have 6 lands on turn 6 on the play with 21 lands in the deck, 16% on the draw (if I didn't mess up the numbers), and I would say that we would prefer not to see 6 lands in our first 12 cards with these decks (Edit: 19% chance of seeing 6 lands or more on the play, 26% on the draw)
Edit: I remember the Waif being a sad top-deck. This guy could be a bit better in that situation. I will like him after a board wipe.
Whenever your creatures leave the battlefield. Not irrelevant - dash is a nice example.
I have not formed a strong opinion regarding Phoenix vs Outburst yet, but it is leaning on the Outburst so far. The Phoenixes can be crazy good sometimes, but I feel like the three tokens open a few different lines of play.
FuumaShirou: there is no Zada + Collateral Damage combo, IronPlushy made a small mistake there.
There is a 12% chance you will have 6 lands on turn 6 on the play with 21 lands in the deck, 16% on the draw (if I didn't mess up the numbers), and I would say that we would prefer not to see 6 lands in our first 12 cards with these decks