MArcomage

Wildfire, uncommon, 13g (thanks to DPsycho for the format)

Burning

Attack: 3N+6

N = #Searing fire in opponent's hand


Too weak imo... assuming he has 4 searings in hand, you'll do just 18 damage for 13 gems... needing the most important ressource for burning decks...
...and when does your opponent have at least 4 searings in hand?? Compared to other burning uncommons such as Lava Spectre (10 att. +mostly enemy magic-1, 11g) or Succubus (14 attack, discard and summoning effect, 8g8r) this card is toooo underpowered, imo.
Upgrade at least to 5N or even 6N... or lower it's cost :-)

that's my opinion... what do others say??

Combined with Wildfire gem, you don't need to have a Burning deck for this to be useful.

Your reasoning is sound, though. As it is, it would be more useful in a deck built for interfering with your opponent's hand than one that relies on Burning. And you can probably expect 3 in hand when it's back to your turn, making this a 15:13 damage ratio, bad for an Uncommon.

How about changing the card's cost and attack to the following:


Wildfire, uncommon, 4B/4G/4R

Burning

Attack: 4N+8

N = #Searing fire in opponent's hand


-OR-


Wildfire, uncommon, 5B/5G/5R

Burning

Attack: 4N+4
Enemy stock: -2N

N = #Searing fire in opponent's hand

I like the second version. Opponent would pay almost the same cost, if he has at least 2 searings in hand... but beware of the judge ;-)

Thanks for commenting. :)

I am going to change the concept but I doubt it will lead somewhere. Still, I'll give it a shot.