F
FoundationOfRancor
Guest
I think Incinerate is a better card overall, but Kindle is better in a couple specific decks. Burn, for example.
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
G
Gizmo
Guest
I disagree. Unless you plan on drawing all 4 Kindles the Incinerates are better and deal as much, or more, damage as Kindles do.
Add that they kill regenerating monsters which otherwise cause burn decks fits, and there can be no competition.
Add that they kill regenerating monsters which otherwise cause burn decks fits, and there can be no competition.
I
Istanbul
Guest
Well, let's see.
First Kindle - 2 points of damage.
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Incinerate
Second Kindle - 3 points of damage.
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Incinerate
Third Kindle - 4 points of damage
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Roughly equal
Fourth Kindle - 5 points of damage
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Kindle
So unless you intend to draw every copy of Kindle in your deck, you might as well play Incinerate, the second-best burn spell ever printed.
First Kindle - 2 points of damage.
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Incinerate
Second Kindle - 3 points of damage.
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Incinerate
Third Kindle - 4 points of damage
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Roughly equal
Fourth Kindle - 5 points of damage
Incinerate - 3 points, no regenerating.
Advantage: Kindle
So unless you intend to draw every copy of Kindle in your deck, you might as well play Incinerate, the second-best burn spell ever printed.
G
Gizmo
Guest
I dont think I am agreeing with him, Spidey.#
I think the main point FoR was making was that you sometimes choose to play Kindle not Incinerate. I think that`s wrong and that you NEVER choose Kindle over Incinerate.
I think the main point FoR was making was that you sometimes choose to play Kindle not Incinerate. I think that`s wrong and that you NEVER choose Kindle over Incinerate.
Ah, okay. I guess FoR needs to clarify his specific deck use for it then.
Although perhaps this is a case for Zadok to make the point where Kindle is better than Incinerate (one's not strictly inferior to the other like the other thread was about though). Perhaps for the first use of each spell?
Although perhaps this is a case for Zadok to make the point where Kindle is better than Incinerate (one's not strictly inferior to the other like the other thread was about though). Perhaps for the first use of each spell?
R
rkoelsch
Guest
break out the champagne. hold the presses.
this is truly a momentus ocassion.
this is truly a momentus ocassion.
Z
Zadok001
Guest
You are at 3. You have a creature in play big enough to kill your opponent. Your opponent has a Mogg Maniac in play. Kindle #1 or Incinerate?
But seriously...
Giz, I do think there are situations where you choose Kindle over Incinerate. They are absurd, utterly idiotic situations, but they exist. Consider the existance of a moron. This particular moron plays Magic, and likes combo decks. (This is a Bad Combination(tm), but consider it anyways.) This moron, hereafter referred to as Fred, builds himself a deck.
This deck is Bad. It goes off in such a manner that Fred gets sixteen extra red mana on the final turn, and uses a combination of Urza's Blueprints, Voltaic Keys, and a Soldevi Digger to recur into a burn spell to kill his opponent. Kindle is clearly the better option, since it is capable of killing your opponent in the four shots you have (8 mana for four kindles, 8 mana to recur it four times), rather than the 7 needed by Incinerate. Assuming, of course, Fred mills himself sufficiently first.
Obviously, I'm pushing it. But it can be done. I'm sure I could design a combo that needed specifically Kindle, not Incinerate or any other burn spell. It's dumb, but it's possible.
Kindle #1 or Incinerate?But seriously...
Giz, I do think there are situations where you choose Kindle over Incinerate. They are absurd, utterly idiotic situations, but they exist. Consider the existance of a moron. This particular moron plays Magic, and likes combo decks. (This is a Bad Combination(tm), but consider it anyways.) This moron, hereafter referred to as Fred, builds himself a deck.
This deck is Bad. It goes off in such a manner that Fred gets sixteen extra red mana on the final turn, and uses a combination of Urza's Blueprints, Voltaic Keys, and a Soldevi Digger to recur into a burn spell to kill his opponent. Kindle is clearly the better option, since it is capable of killing your opponent in the four shots you have (8 mana for four kindles, 8 mana to recur it four times), rather than the 7 needed by Incinerate. Assuming, of course, Fred mills himself sufficiently first.
Obviously, I'm pushing it. But it can be done. I'm sure I could design a combo that needed specifically Kindle, not Incinerate or any other burn spell. It's dumb, but it's possible.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Why even wonder about Kindle? Isn't Flame Burst a little better?
Granted, you'll need to find a reason to use Pardic Firecat in your deck. (All-commons format perhaps?)
Incinerate is certainly the best choice (of the three).
Granted, you'll need to find a reason to use Pardic Firecat in your deck. (All-commons format perhaps?
)Incinerate is certainly the best choice (of the three).
F
FoundationOfRancor
Guest
Let me specify,
I think Kindle is a better choice in burn decks, and multiplayer formats...
I think Kindle is a better choice in burn decks, and multiplayer formats...
A
Apollo
Guest
It is sometimes better in multiplayer, but in burn decks? Huh? You'd have to draw all four of the card for Kindle to be better, and what burn deck is designed to get that far in to the deck?
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
I think the comment about the multiplayer format has to do with an assumption that more people will use it (Kindle). I avoid multiplayer, so I can't tell whether that is an accurate assumption.
K
Killerbob
Guest
Kindle comboes with intuition! -or fact or fiction. Or oath of druids.
Add hammers, firebolts and shard phoenix, and you have the base of a deck -which probably sucks...
Add hammers, firebolts and shard phoenix, and you have the base of a deck -which probably sucks...
I think it would be good in multiplayer if that was one of the only burn spells available, thus ensuring people will use it.
However, I have occasionally played and it has not come up, due to the fact that only I have Kindle and everyone else, including I, have access to Bolt so we usually use that instead.
However, I have occasionally played and it has not come up, due to the fact that only I have Kindle and everyone else, including I, have access to Bolt so we usually use that instead.