Yea im stoked she's real, its funny because i honestly think she's way stronger then any other creature in the set. This set is absolute garbage imo.
It's kinda funny that they switched to this 2 set format because they felt like they could never really hit a 3 set block out of the park and the result is that the first 2 set block is suffering as a result of the sudden development change.
Hopefully the set is opened enough that Drana ends up being bulk-mythic cheap.
So, I ordered some cards. This is my current list. Unfortunately, I won't get to play it at FNM for a few months because I'll be out of town. I dropped the Signets and swapped several creatures. I'm getting a Thoughtseize (was borrowing one), Venser, the Specters, Preordain, Ponder, Greater Gargadon, Demonic Tutor, Reanimate, Apocalypse, High Market, Tarnished Citadel, and Hall of the Bandit Lord. I'm also getting a Goblin Gardener but haven't put it in the list. I also swapped out Disperse for Crosis's Charm.
I feel like Jokulhaups and Apocalypse are solid win conditions, though Apocalypse needs a sac outlet or a reckless attack to set it up.
-But Nacatl
-Stop netdecking
-You just hate it
-Why do we argue
-Christmas land
No one has actually said anything cogent to address the theory points. There are no consistent high level results to fall back on. So, currently unimpressed.
You guys are welcome to play Vexing. People play bad builds all the time. If your interested in winning, I'd suggest making a note of how much damage the card deals each time it's played, and then divide it into the number of times it was played. I'll venture a guess that it won't stay in the deck long if this is done honestly.
On that last point, Soldier claimed that Devil is this:
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 50% Mega Bolt 50% Creature
Turn 3... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 4... 100% Creature.
Even assuming that's correct (that's likely being very generous), the best case scenario is EV of 3 damage on T1 only, and then it gets worse from there until it's a 4/3 your opponent doesn't care about because they're going to win or kill it. Yet, the claim was that we want a 4/3 on T4. Soldier, take Nevelo's advice and see how many times your T4 Devil actually connects for anything. The answer is most likely quite small, such that the expectation value of your T4 Devil is only slightly above zero. You shouldn't be striving to cast a spell on T4 that does nothing when you should be casting something to win the game.
If people are saying a 4/3 for 1 mana is bad, then can anyone explain to me why Nacatl Burn is all the rage?
Devil isn't a 4/3 for 1 mana. It's a Super-Lava Spike that I can counter if I have a removal spell or choose to ignore if I don't care about a 4/3 because I'm going to win next turn or I have something bigger already.
Nacatl is a 3/3 for 1 mana and 4-6 life that I can't choose to turn into a Lava Spike to get rid of it on the spot. It's all the rage because a pro said "hey, burn people, Nacatl!" And the people drooled and said "hey! Nacatl!" Nacatl Burn hasn't proven to be better than Naya Burn.
Neither is a good Burn card. Both are terrible late game top-decks. No one is going to say "I'm at 3? Ok, I'll take the Devil Damage. Good game." Instead, they'll say "Cool. Splinter Twin. Good game." You'd much rather have a spell that gets damage through late, which is why I'd rather have Helix, Blaze, and Skullcrack over Devil or Nacatl. They're only good early in the game when they're harder to deal with. What's a 3/3 or 4/3 worth when you're staring at Tasigur, Rhino, or Tarmogoyf? Nothing. What's a Lightning Helix/Searing Blaze worth when you're staring at those? The last 3 damage you needed to win the game.
You don't want Devil to be a 4/3 creature. You want Devil to be a Super Lava Spike. The only time it is a Super Lava Spike is T1, and according to you it's only 3/4 of the time. Your expected value of Devil is Lava Spike on T1, Shock on T2, Gut Shot on T3, and a dead weight body on T4. That's awful compared to an actual burn spell.
I think you need to read what I've been saying first, otherwise don't comment.
If you personally want Devil to be a 4/3 instead of a Super Spike, you're doing it wrong. If Devil comes in as a creature, it's because it's going to do zero.
Once again, your expected value of Devil is Lava Spike on T1, Shock on T2, Gut Shot on T3, and a dead weight body on T4. That's awful compared to an actual burn spell. End of story. You're better off with Searing Blaze of Lightning Helix because those can actually win the game with you top deck them late. Vexing Devil comes down as a 4/3 that late and either dies or you lose the game. Do you think Twin cares if you have a 4/3 on T3? Of course not! They're attacking with a bunch of Pestermites next turn and you lose.
The circular nature of this argument is a feature of the overly general analysis. Evaluating Devil in a vacuum is not very useful - I don't think anyone is advocating playing it over Lava Spike - we all agree lava spike is the better card for the deck. Comparing it to lava spike therefore is silly - there is no disagreement as to which is superior.
Everyone should do the thread a favour: If you are advocating Devil, please make an argument for it in the context of what it would replace, or which card you would not play in order to fit it in. Only in context and moving away from comparing Vexing Devil to Lava spike can a real discussion be had.
Again, no one is saying to drop Lava Spike for Vexing Devil. But advocates of devil, do us all a favour and include which card you favour it over for a more thorough and informative discussion.
edit: For instance, I play Jund Burn and have been considering running it over grim lavamancer and the third skull crack (making vexing a 3-of hypothetically). Grim Lavamancer is still in the list, but he is the potential target for Devil to replace in my eyes.
I never implied you replace Lava Spike with it. I stated several times that you use a flex spot, ie. Grim, Skullcrack, Blaze, Helix, and the like. Those burn spells could win you the game late, where a late Vexing Devil just loses. You only want Devil early when you can expect it to be Super Lava Spike. Now, Soldier is claiming that's not the case. He wants a late 4/3, because evidently he wants to pay R for a 4/3 that either gets chumped or dies and does nothing to further his game plan. That's just absurd.
I think someone even said that Eidolon of the Great Revel has been "bad for them" and they preferred Nacatl or Devil. That's nonsense.
I do think all this 'vexing devil' hate posts are a little annoying. I've been playing with Vexing Devil since it was introduced and so far I don't see this freaking issue of being too inconsistent. Maybe it's because I see the creature as a CREATURE and not as a MEGA BOLT. I also figured out the odds myself.
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 50% Mega Bolt 50% Creature
Turn 3... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 4... 100% Creature.
Legacy build is different (thanks to cards like Fireblast and Price of Progress)
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 3... 100% Creature
The percentages are subject to changed based on the deck and the player.
For example: Control decks have answers to creatures in play so they will suck in the 4 damage, so they can save their removal spells. (at least for the first 2 turns.) Argo players can deal with a 4/3 creature and will allow them in play. Combo players will allow the devil in play (if they are a speedy combo deck) otherwise they will suck in the damage.
Let's assume you're correct about this part:
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 50% Mega Bolt 50% Creature
Turn 3... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 4... 100% Creature.
So, on T1, the expected value of it is 75% * 4 damage + 25% * 0 damage = 3 damage.
This is where the creature is totally random and where it seems how player seemed to put high expectations on the creature.
Personally, I never play the devil on the first (unless he's the only playable card). The first turn goes to Goblin Guide and Rift Bolt (I think Rift Bolts are the worst because they are slow).
T2: 2 damage.
Seriously? Why play the devil on turn 2? Actually this is how I find it hard to play swiftspear. Second turn goes to Eidolon or searing blaze/blood. There is almost no point in playing Eidolon in the later turns; unless he's not in your opening hand. On the otherhand, if you don't have Eidolon but you have a second Goblin Guide then it would be the best time to drop. The problem I have with Swiftspear, for Swiftspear to be good (really good) I need to push Eidolon at the back of the line.
T3: 1 damage. T4: 0 damage. Best case scenario expected value of Devil is a Bolt, and every turn after that it gets weaker.
This is where 99% of the argument seemed to fail. Vexing Devil is a creature (not a bolt). Playing the devil during this part of the game keeps the pressure on. (sure modern is a different animal then legacy but if the opponent had already suck in 6 damage with the fetch/shocklands the percentage of the devil becoming a creature goes up.
You very much misunderstood what I'm saying. Let's assume your percentages are correct. I am asserting that if your opponent allows it to become a creature, it is because it will do zero damage to them because they can block it or kill it. So, you're expected value of playing devil on T1 is 3 damage. T2 is 2 damage. T3 is 1 damage. T4 is zero. Your expected value of a T1 actual Lava Spike is 3. T2: 3 (unless countered, something that can also happen to Devil). T4: 3 (unless countered). T5: 3 (unless countered). See the pattern? Burn spells are 3 damage. Period. Vexing Devil is going to be 4 or it's going to be zero. It's going to be 4 when you want a creature and it's going to be zero when you want it to be 4. If your probabilities are correct, you're advocating playing a card that's worse than a Burn spell over a Burn spell. T1 is the only time you should want to play it, because that's the only time your expected value is equal to a Burn spell. You say "Seriously?" to my statement that it's worth 2 on T2. I used your probabilities and that's what comes out 50% times 4 + 50% times 0 = expected value of 2. That sucks. It gets worse on T3. It's even worse on T4. Your own probabilities should show you why Devil is bad, I really don't understand how that's confusing to you.
If it becomes a creature late, it's because they either can't afford to take 4 (ie. a burn spell probably would have won, instead you have a creature that doesn't do anything for a turn) or they can block or kill it. It's not going to "keep pressure on them", they'll block it to delay it or they'll win the game with 3 life when you could have won instead. The most likely outcome of having this 4/3 creature late is that it does zero damage to your opponent, and you get to watch them win the game because of it. Congratulations!
You don't want Devil to be a 4/3 creature. You want Devil to be a Super Lava Spike. The only time it is a Super Lava Spike is T1, and according to you it's only 3/4 of the time. Your expected value of Devil is Lava Spike on T1, Shock on T2, Gut Shot on T3, and a dead weight body on T4. That's awful compared to an actual burn spell.
I do think all this 'vexing devil' hate posts are a little annoying. I've been playing with Vexing Devil since it was introduced and so far I don't see this freaking issue of being too inconsistent. Maybe it's because I see the creature as a CREATURE and not as a MEGA BOLT. I also figured out the odds myself.
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 50% Mega Bolt 50% Creature
Turn 3... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 4... 100% Creature.
Legacy build is different (thanks to cards like Fireblast and Price of Progress)
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 3... 100% Creature
The percentages are subject to changed based on the deck and the player.
For example: Control decks have answers to creatures in play so they will suck in the 4 damage, so they can save their removal spells. (at least for the first 2 turns.) Argo players can deal with a 4/3 creature and will allow them in play. Combo players will allow the devil in play (if they are a speedy combo deck) otherwise they will suck in the damage.
Let's assume you're correct about this part:
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 50% Mega Bolt 50% Creature
Turn 3... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 4... 100% Creature.
So, on T1, the expected value of it is 75% * 4 damage + 25% * 0 damage = 3 damage. T2: 2 damage. T3: 1 damage. T4: 0 damage. Best case scenario expected value of Devil is a Bolt, and every turn after that it gets weaker. You're better off playing another actual Bolt effect in the form of Helix, Blaze, or Skullcrack, or Lavamancer, ie. flex spot cards which is what you're taking out in order to play the Devil.
Just an observation from this weekend at OKC - I finished 6-3 in the main after having to battle leylines for the 1st 4 rounds... but had a better 4th out of 159 in the modern 10:00 AM - only thing noteworthy is that I took out Nacatl and the deck seemed good, but the mirror matches I had against Nacatl (3 of them) I blew them out - just such a set back to play turn one Nacatl, I Searing Blaze it next, play another into Kor Firewalker, bolt.. etc.
Wise decision dropping Nacatl to play Naya Burn. Your mirror match showed why it's bad. It's too painful, and paying 6 life to have it removed before dealing any damage is a bad scenario.
In general, Nacatl just makes your good matchups better and your bad ones worse. There's not really any reason to do that.
Anyone else currently watching GP Oklahoma? Burn is in top 8 and is currently about to lose to Lantern control. I really hope they ban that stupid deck, so boring to watch. Burn player got unlucky G2 with a mull down to 5, everyone in the comments is hating so hard on Burn.
Of course they're hating on Burn, that's just the way it goes. Feed on the hatred.
Lantern Control is normally a cakewalk for Burn. They typically don't get the lock set up before we can win. There's nothing really banworthy about Lantern, though. It mills slowly, but once the lock is set up the turns are quick.
Can we please end this Nacatl/Vexing devil discussion? Neither of these cards are good in burn, thats been proven many times now. Nacatl is still just flavor of the month and does not belong in burn, neither does the devil. The deck runs 12-14 creatures and the rest is BURN spells. Guide, swifty and Eidolon are 4-of's there's no debating that. Then you can choose 0,1 or 2 Grim lava's. Everything else should be a BURN spell; other options for creatures just do not cut it.
I wish we could, but unfortunately someone shows up every page saying "I/My friend runs Devil/Nacatl and it's sooooo good!"
We need to see consistently high performing lists with Nacatl before we can conclude it's truly better, but that hasn't happened. Winning FNMs doesn't mean anything. Winning Dailies doesn't mean anything. Anything can win a 3-4 round tournament. It's just the new hotness that everyone's playing on MTGO.
namelessoracle: Abbot doesn't cut it in Burn either.
You play it T2: All you get is a 2/1 Prowess that doesn't do anything until T3.
You play it T3: You might as well do it before playing land 3 (if you even have a third land on T3), so that you might get land 3 out of the Abbot trigger. If you don't have a land on T3, you once again have a 2/1 Prowess that doesn't do anything until T4.
You play it T4 or latter: Maybe you have lands to cast stuff by now. So, you play it and exile Boros Charm and now you have a 4 mana Boros Charm and now mana to cast anything else. You exile Rift, now you have a 5 mana 3 damage spell and no mana to cast anything else. Instead of adding 2 mana to your burn spell, you could have played more burn spells, and then you'd have mana to cast something.
Burn doesn't want a late game 2/1 or a 4 mana burn spell, it's a crappy body and doesn't have haste.
Vexing Devil is a lot better when you are playing atarka's command even top draw. Giving it plus 1 plus 1 allows it to survive a bolt.
No, it's not. Vexing Devil is just not good. It's a seductive card, but your opponent controls how it affects them. It's going to be a body when they don't want to take 4 and it's going to deal 4 when they don't want a body. Atarka's Command doesn't make Devil good, it doesn't affect Path or Decay. Boros Charm has an indestructibility mode, but it's extremely rare that we use it.
Then I shall rephrase.
Vexting Devil is plenty good for ME. What isnt good for me is Eidolon of the Great Revel. Every time I've replaced Vexing Devil with Eidolon I've regretted it. Every time I move back to Vexing Devil I start winning the majority of my games again. I've won every tournament I've gone to in my local meta save 1 beating out Soul Sisters, American Control, Hangarback Affinity, Coco Elves, Scapeshift, RU Storm, Boros Burn, Grixis Delver, Stompy, Grixis Twin, Jund, Jeskai Ascendancy combo, Abzan Aggro, G Infect, BGU Infect, GU Infect, and all of the hombrew decks my local meta comes up with including RG Land Destruction, BR Vampires, B Vampire Discard, RW Manabarbs, etc.
I know I would definetely play Vexing over Nacatl any day of the week. 90 percent of the time he is dome damage for 4 on turn one. The rest he eats a bolt or increases my land count from Path to Exile. I know I've said this before dozens of pages ago but for those that are tired of the meta knowing how Eidolon works and he is simply 2 burn for 2 mana I challenge you to switch back to Vexing Devil and see how you like him in that slot. Not everyone has to play the exact same 60. Try something against the grain and see how you like it and if its bad dont do it anymore but more importantly if it's good then you have a new and different tool to bring to the table.
To steven - I highly recommend Boros Charm over Lightning Helix. Boros Charm is a fantastic finisher and that extra point of damage can sometimes bring the game home even if Lightning Helix does do six points overall in the damage/lifegain spread and can target a creature. Let me know how Tasigur works out for you.
Eidolon is absolutely better than Devil, it's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Everyone groans as soon as you play it because they know it will hurt them. If you have issues with Eidolon, it's because you haven't figured out how to manage it. You control how Eidolon affects you, and you should be willing to pay R and 2 life to deal 3 to your opponent. Eidolon demands an immediate answer or it will run away with the game. All of their removal and counters will shock them and if they don't remove it, you're attacking for 2. If Eidolon makes them second guess playing cards, you're ahead. If you're ahead and you can drop 2 Eidolons, you've locked the game down and you're attacking for 4 every turn. That's huge. Learn how to play with Eidolon and you're deck will be much stronger.
Vexing Devil might be 4 early unless they remove it, in which case it's zero and you wasted a turn. Vexing Devil is never 8 unless your opponent is an idiot.
Eidolon is the reason Burn got much stronger about 15 months ago. Vexing Devil existed for a long time before that and the results simply weren't there. The difference is Eidolon of the Great Revel, plain and simple.
If I wanted to try Vexing Devil, I'd drop flex spot cards like Grim Lavamancer, not auto-includes like Eidolon. "Against the grain" doesn't mean "better".
Well it's super super important to have a turn one creature play in this deck, when I played the 8 one drop version I felt I would miss it too often. Having a turn one creature play helps a lot against any deck. I mean sure top decking a creature is not ideal when you need a burn spell, but I think the trade off is worth it if you have a more consistent draw with a turn one creature.
I understand both points, but for me online the results have been 16 or higher creatures almost every list. Some even use 17 as for a random grim lavamancer
Keyword being *online*. It shows up on MTGO because it's the new hotness, not because it's better. Nacatl isn't showing up consistently in top tournaments. For many reasons, Nacatl is not a good card in this deck, plain and simple. If you want a creature deck: 1 drop zoo. That's where Nacatl shines.
I think you have it backwards. The tradeoff for drawing Burn later when you need Burn is that you get stuck with T1 Lava Spike or Rift Bolt. I'd rather have Burn late than a creature early.
Vexing Devil is a lot better when you are playing atarka's command even top draw. Giving it plus 1 plus 1 allows it to survive a bolt.
No, it's not. Vexing Devil is just not good. It's a seductive card, but your opponent controls how it affects them. It's going to be a body when they don't want to take 4 and it's going to deal 4 when they don't want a body. Atarka's Command doesn't make Devil good, it doesn't affect Path or Decay. Boros Charm has an indestructibility mode, but it's extremely rare that we use it.
When you guys are talking about vexing devil, It's over wild nactl right? I think devil is for sure better than nactl in any draw you draw more than one, one drop creature, which happens often if you play a 16 or 17 creature build.
My main grudge with ensnaring bridge is it costs 3 (main reason I dont side in molten rain anymore) but I can see it working for sure
You would never drop Guide, Swifty, or Eidolon for Devil. Devil would be filling a "flex spot", of which there are maybe 8 total slots that typically see a few Lavamancers, Lightning Helix, Searing Blaze, Skullcrack, etc. That is, stuff that's not an automatic 4-of.
In any case, it's not worth playing Devil *or* Nacatl. At least Devil doesn't cost you 6 life to get a 3/3 that doesn't do anything on T2 when it gets bolted. However, neither card is worth playing in a competitive build. It's not as if "we need more creatures, should we use Nacatl or Devil", it's "I want to use more creatures, I want to pick between Nacatl and Devil". Burn isn't a creature deck, and if you include either of these two creatures you're losing some burn spells to do it, and that's not good. You'll quickly run into "well, on T5 I needed a bolt effect but I drew Nacatl/Devil. I lost the next turn." and realize neither is good.
lol I never understood the banning of Nacatl or why modern burn is 3 colors. 6 life is huge especially when your playing eidolon.
I wasn't around when Nacatl was banned, but as I understand it it was banned because every aggro deck was Naya running Nacatl and that's stale.
Why is modern burn 3 colors? Well, a year ago, it was RWg. Maindeck was RW with Lightning Helix and Boros Charm. The sideboard had Path and Kor Firewalker as well as Destructive Revelry to deal with problem cards like Leyline. Then Swiftspear came out and was an auto-include. Then DTK came around and we got Atarka's Command for RG, or Super-Skullcrack. It gets around Leyline, is a color we're already splashing, turns Swifty into a 3/4 if we want it to, or blocks our biggest problem in life gain. AC is how Burn gets blowout wins on T3 if you can cast it with multiple Swiftspears in play. When it came out, people asked the same questions "3 colors is painful, is it really worth it?" Performance in high level tournaments has shown that AC is worth it, though some may still play Boros splashing green for DRev.
"6 life is huge especially when your playing eidolon": Not really. You tend to only fetch the shocks you need when playing Naya Burn. With Nacatl, you need both shocks to turn it on and you can Bolt it after I pay for Foundry to turn it into a 3/3. Then it didn't impact the game in any meaningful way, and it dealt 6 damage to me in the process. How is that a good play? If your opener has AC, you fetch Stomping Ground and deal with Foundry if you need it later. Eidolon is the reason that Burn is T1. It hurts me to have it in play, but it also hurts you and I can choose to chump with it and get it out of my way if I need to.
If you want to play Nacatl, play 1 drop zoo where it actually shines. It's not a Burn card. It's a green card that people are looking at because they're already playing Atarka's Command.
It's kinda funny that they switched to this 2 set format because they felt like they could never really hit a 3 set block out of the park and the result is that the first 2 set block is suffering as a result of the sudden development change.
Hopefully the set is opened enough that Drana ends up being bulk-mythic cheap.
Guy advocated playing Devil over Eidolon because "Eidolon isn't good for me".
1x Marchesa, the Black Rose
Creature (35)
1x Apprentice Necromancer
1x Avalanche Riders
1x Baleful Strix
1x Blazing Specter
1x Bloodflow Connoisseur
1x Burnished Hart
1x Carrion Feeder
1x Flesh Carver
1x Fleshbag Marauder
1x Greater Gargadon
1x Grim Haruspex
1x Hellhole Flailer
1x Hero of Oxid Ridge
1x Hypnotic Specter
1x Icefall Regent
1x Lightning Mauler
1x Liliana, Heretical Healer
1x Merciless Executioner
1x Mulldrifter
1x Pain Seer
1x Ravenous Baboons
1x Reckless Reveler
1x Sage of Fables
1x Sedraxis Specter
1x Shadowmage Infiltrator
1x Solemn Simulacrum
1x Spiketail Drakeling
1x Spiketail Hatchling
1x Thalakos Deceiver
1x Thrummingbird
1x Venser, Shaper Savant
1x Vigean Graftmage
1x Viscera Seer
1x Voidmage Prodigy
1x Xathrid Necromancer
1x Blood Crypt
1x Bloodstained Mire
1x Bojuka Bog
1x City of Brass
1x Command Tower
1x Crosis's Catacombs
1x Crumbling Necropolis
1x Darkwater Catacombs
1x Dragonskull Summit
1x Drowned Catacomb
1x Flooded Strand
1x High Market
3x Island
1x Lavaclaw Reaches
1x Miren, the Moaning Well
3x Mountain
1x Mutavault
1x Opal Palace
1x Phyrexian Tower
1x Polluted Delta
1x Reflecting Pool
1x Shadowblood Ridge
1x Shivan Reef
1x Steam Vents
1x Sulfurous Springs
3x Swamp
1x Tainted Isle
1x Tainted Peak
1x Tarnished Citadel
1x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
1x Watery Grave
1x Wooded Foothills
1x Apocalypse
1x Black Sun's Zenith
1x Blackmail
1x Demonic Tutor
1x Duress
1x Hymn to Tourach
1x Jokulhaups
1x Ponder
1x Preordain
1x Reanimate
1x Serum Visions
1x Thoughtseize
1x Toxic Deluge
Instant (9)
1x Brainstorm
1x Chaos Warp
1x Crosis's Charm
1x Cyclonic Rift
1x Fire Covenant
1x Lightning Bolt
1x Terminate
1x Tragic Slip
1x Vendetta
Artifact (4)
1x Lightning Greaves
1x Skullclamp
1x Talisman of Dominance
1x Talisman of Indulgence
So, I ordered some cards. This is my current list. Unfortunately, I won't get to play it at FNM for a few months because I'll be out of town. I dropped the Signets and swapped several creatures. I'm getting a Thoughtseize (was borrowing one), Venser, the Specters, Preordain, Ponder, Greater Gargadon, Demonic Tutor, Reanimate, Apocalypse, High Market, Tarnished Citadel, and Hall of the Bandit Lord. I'm also getting a Goblin Gardener but haven't put it in the list. I also swapped out Disperse for Crosis's Charm.
I feel like Jokulhaups and Apocalypse are solid win conditions, though Apocalypse needs a sac outlet or a reckless attack to set it up.
On that last point, Soldier claimed that Devil is this:
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 50% Mega Bolt 50% Creature
Turn 3... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 4... 100% Creature.
Even assuming that's correct (that's likely being very generous), the best case scenario is EV of 3 damage on T1 only, and then it gets worse from there until it's a 4/3 your opponent doesn't care about because they're going to win or kill it. Yet, the claim was that we want a 4/3 on T4. Soldier, take Nevelo's advice and see how many times your T4 Devil actually connects for anything. The answer is most likely quite small, such that the expectation value of your T4 Devil is only slightly above zero. You shouldn't be striving to cast a spell on T4 that does nothing when you should be casting something to win the game.
Devil isn't a 4/3 for 1 mana. It's a Super-Lava Spike that I can counter if I have a removal spell or choose to ignore if I don't care about a 4/3 because I'm going to win next turn or I have something bigger already.
Nacatl is a 3/3 for 1 mana and 4-6 life that I can't choose to turn into a Lava Spike to get rid of it on the spot. It's all the rage because a pro said "hey, burn people, Nacatl!" And the people drooled and said "hey! Nacatl!" Nacatl Burn hasn't proven to be better than Naya Burn.
Neither is a good Burn card. Both are terrible late game top-decks. No one is going to say "I'm at 3? Ok, I'll take the Devil Damage. Good game." Instead, they'll say "Cool. Splinter Twin. Good game." You'd much rather have a spell that gets damage through late, which is why I'd rather have Helix, Blaze, and Skullcrack over Devil or Nacatl. They're only good early in the game when they're harder to deal with. What's a 3/3 or 4/3 worth when you're staring at Tasigur, Rhino, or Tarmogoyf? Nothing. What's a Lightning Helix/Searing Blaze worth when you're staring at those? The last 3 damage you needed to win the game.
If you personally want Devil to be a 4/3 instead of a Super Spike, you're doing it wrong. If Devil comes in as a creature, it's because it's going to do zero.
Once again, your expected value of Devil is Lava Spike on T1, Shock on T2, Gut Shot on T3, and a dead weight body on T4. That's awful compared to an actual burn spell. End of story. You're better off with Searing Blaze of Lightning Helix because those can actually win the game with you top deck them late. Vexing Devil comes down as a 4/3 that late and either dies or you lose the game. Do you think Twin cares if you have a 4/3 on T3? Of course not! They're attacking with a bunch of Pestermites next turn and you lose.
I never implied you replace Lava Spike with it. I stated several times that you use a flex spot, ie. Grim, Skullcrack, Blaze, Helix, and the like. Those burn spells could win you the game late, where a late Vexing Devil just loses. You only want Devil early when you can expect it to be Super Lava Spike. Now, Soldier is claiming that's not the case. He wants a late 4/3, because evidently he wants to pay R for a 4/3 that either gets chumped or dies and does nothing to further his game plan. That's just absurd.
I think someone even said that Eidolon of the Great Revel has been "bad for them" and they preferred Nacatl or Devil. That's nonsense.
You very much misunderstood what I'm saying. Let's assume your percentages are correct. I am asserting that if your opponent allows it to become a creature, it is because it will do zero damage to them because they can block it or kill it. So, you're expected value of playing devil on T1 is 3 damage. T2 is 2 damage. T3 is 1 damage. T4 is zero. Your expected value of a T1 actual Lava Spike is 3. T2: 3 (unless countered, something that can also happen to Devil). T4: 3 (unless countered). T5: 3 (unless countered). See the pattern? Burn spells are 3 damage. Period. Vexing Devil is going to be 4 or it's going to be zero. It's going to be 4 when you want a creature and it's going to be zero when you want it to be 4. If your probabilities are correct, you're advocating playing a card that's worse than a Burn spell over a Burn spell. T1 is the only time you should want to play it, because that's the only time your expected value is equal to a Burn spell. You say "Seriously?" to my statement that it's worth 2 on T2. I used your probabilities and that's what comes out 50% times 4 + 50% times 0 = expected value of 2. That sucks. It gets worse on T3. It's even worse on T4. Your own probabilities should show you why Devil is bad, I really don't understand how that's confusing to you.
If it becomes a creature late, it's because they either can't afford to take 4 (ie. a burn spell probably would have won, instead you have a creature that doesn't do anything for a turn) or they can block or kill it. It's not going to "keep pressure on them", they'll block it to delay it or they'll win the game with 3 life when you could have won instead. The most likely outcome of having this 4/3 creature late is that it does zero damage to your opponent, and you get to watch them win the game because of it. Congratulations!
You don't want Devil to be a 4/3 creature. You want Devil to be a Super Lava Spike. The only time it is a Super Lava Spike is T1, and according to you it's only 3/4 of the time. Your expected value of Devil is Lava Spike on T1, Shock on T2, Gut Shot on T3, and a dead weight body on T4. That's awful compared to an actual burn spell.
Let's assume you're correct about this part:
Turn 1... 75% Mega Bolt 25% Creature
Turn 2... 50% Mega Bolt 50% Creature
Turn 3... 25% Mega Bolt 75% Creature
Turn 4... 100% Creature.
So, on T1, the expected value of it is 75% * 4 damage + 25% * 0 damage = 3 damage. T2: 2 damage. T3: 1 damage. T4: 0 damage. Best case scenario expected value of Devil is a Bolt, and every turn after that it gets weaker. You're better off playing another actual Bolt effect in the form of Helix, Blaze, or Skullcrack, or Lavamancer, ie. flex spot cards which is what you're taking out in order to play the Devil.
Wise decision dropping Nacatl to play Naya Burn. Your mirror match showed why it's bad. It's too painful, and paying 6 life to have it removed before dealing any damage is a bad scenario.
In general, Nacatl just makes your good matchups better and your bad ones worse. There's not really any reason to do that.
Of course they're hating on Burn, that's just the way it goes. Feed on the hatred.
Lantern Control is normally a cakewalk for Burn. They typically don't get the lock set up before we can win. There's nothing really banworthy about Lantern, though. It mills slowly, but once the lock is set up the turns are quick.
I wish we could, but unfortunately someone shows up every page saying "I/My friend runs Devil/Nacatl and it's sooooo good!"
We need to see consistently high performing lists with Nacatl before we can conclude it's truly better, but that hasn't happened. Winning FNMs doesn't mean anything. Winning Dailies doesn't mean anything. Anything can win a 3-4 round tournament. It's just the new hotness that everyone's playing on MTGO.
namelessoracle: Abbot doesn't cut it in Burn either.
You play it T2: All you get is a 2/1 Prowess that doesn't do anything until T3.
You play it T3: You might as well do it before playing land 3 (if you even have a third land on T3), so that you might get land 3 out of the Abbot trigger. If you don't have a land on T3, you once again have a 2/1 Prowess that doesn't do anything until T4.
You play it T4 or latter: Maybe you have lands to cast stuff by now. So, you play it and exile Boros Charm and now you have a 4 mana Boros Charm and now mana to cast anything else. You exile Rift, now you have a 5 mana 3 damage spell and no mana to cast anything else. Instead of adding 2 mana to your burn spell, you could have played more burn spells, and then you'd have mana to cast something.
Burn doesn't want a late game 2/1 or a 4 mana burn spell, it's a crappy body and doesn't have haste.
Eidolon is absolutely better than Devil, it's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Everyone groans as soon as you play it because they know it will hurt them. If you have issues with Eidolon, it's because you haven't figured out how to manage it. You control how Eidolon affects you, and you should be willing to pay R and 2 life to deal 3 to your opponent. Eidolon demands an immediate answer or it will run away with the game. All of their removal and counters will shock them and if they don't remove it, you're attacking for 2. If Eidolon makes them second guess playing cards, you're ahead. If you're ahead and you can drop 2 Eidolons, you've locked the game down and you're attacking for 4 every turn. That's huge. Learn how to play with Eidolon and you're deck will be much stronger.
Vexing Devil might be 4 early unless they remove it, in which case it's zero and you wasted a turn. Vexing Devil is never 8 unless your opponent is an idiot.
Eidolon is the reason Burn got much stronger about 15 months ago. Vexing Devil existed for a long time before that and the results simply weren't there. The difference is Eidolon of the Great Revel, plain and simple.
If I wanted to try Vexing Devil, I'd drop flex spot cards like Grim Lavamancer, not auto-includes like Eidolon. "Against the grain" doesn't mean "better".
Keyword being *online*. It shows up on MTGO because it's the new hotness, not because it's better. Nacatl isn't showing up consistently in top tournaments. For many reasons, Nacatl is not a good card in this deck, plain and simple. If you want a creature deck: 1 drop zoo. That's where Nacatl shines.
I think you have it backwards. The tradeoff for drawing Burn later when you need Burn is that you get stuck with T1 Lava Spike or Rift Bolt. I'd rather have Burn late than a creature early.
No, it's not. Vexing Devil is just not good. It's a seductive card, but your opponent controls how it affects them. It's going to be a body when they don't want to take 4 and it's going to deal 4 when they don't want a body. Atarka's Command doesn't make Devil good, it doesn't affect Path or Decay. Boros Charm has an indestructibility mode, but it's extremely rare that we use it.
I wasn't around when Nacatl was banned, but as I understand it it was banned because every aggro deck was Naya running Nacatl and that's stale.
Why is modern burn 3 colors? Well, a year ago, it was RWg. Maindeck was RW with Lightning Helix and Boros Charm. The sideboard had Path and Kor Firewalker as well as Destructive Revelry to deal with problem cards like Leyline. Then Swiftspear came out and was an auto-include. Then DTK came around and we got Atarka's Command for RG, or Super-Skullcrack. It gets around Leyline, is a color we're already splashing, turns Swifty into a 3/4 if we want it to, or blocks our biggest problem in life gain. AC is how Burn gets blowout wins on T3 if you can cast it with multiple Swiftspears in play. When it came out, people asked the same questions "3 colors is painful, is it really worth it?" Performance in high level tournaments has shown that AC is worth it, though some may still play Boros splashing green for DRev.
"6 life is huge especially when your playing eidolon": Not really. You tend to only fetch the shocks you need when playing Naya Burn. With Nacatl, you need both shocks to turn it on and you can Bolt it after I pay for Foundry to turn it into a 3/3. Then it didn't impact the game in any meaningful way, and it dealt 6 damage to me in the process. How is that a good play? If your opener has AC, you fetch Stomping Ground and deal with Foundry if you need it later. Eidolon is the reason that Burn is T1. It hurts me to have it in play, but it also hurts you and I can choose to chump with it and get it out of my way if I need to.
If you want to play Nacatl, play 1 drop zoo where it actually shines. It's not a Burn card. It's a green card that people are looking at because they're already playing Atarka's Command.