Burn, VERY seriously....

[ragnarok1945]

if the guy makes future changes, that's still pending

[Daigusto Sphreez]

Maybe, but right now, -4 cards for battle damage is insane.

[ragnarok1945]

maybe if the battle damage was high enough there'd be justification

[Daigusto Sphreez]

Hmm, well the synergy isn't great either, the field card burns on a per card in hand basis, yet the monster depletes cards in hand. Contradictory. Although it does at least compensate for the OP'd effect ever-so-slightly.

[MORPHINGJARFORTHEWIN]

[quote name='Thermatic' timestamp='1330473726' post='5846847']
Maybe, but right now, -4 cards for battle damage is insane.
[/quote] I understand that, but remember, this isnt fit for a deck with juggernaut monsters. Its harder to get battle damage.

[ragnarok1945]

[quote name='My mom' timestamp='1330474226' post='5846869']
I understand that, but remember, this isnt fit for a deck with juggernaut monsters. Its harder to get battle damage.
[/quote]

even so there's still the stats changing effect cards

[MORPHINGJARFORTHEWIN]

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1330474297' post='5846872']
even so there's still the stats changing effect cards
[/quote]Yes, yes, but let me explain. Most of the cards that I make, and all of the burn cards I make, are meant to end the game quickly.
I usually prefer making cards that depend on their effects, so the ATK doesnt matter much. I [i]will [/i]make a card that is a good offence monster,
though, because this card's effect relies on battle dmg.

[ragnarok1945]

yeah but are they going to be all OTK or something?

[MORPHINGJARFORTHEWIN]

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1330474842' post='5846894']
yeah but are they going to be all OTK or something?
[/quote]Of course not! Take that Eruption card I made earlier, it inflicts 1000 damage to [b]BOTH[/b] players' LP.
By end the game quickly, it doesnt neccessarily mean [i]win[/i]. So you can give your opponent less time to react,
you take that opportunity. Thats how my cards work.

[ragnarok1945]

so it'd be like Ring of Destruction then

[MORPHINGJARFORTHEWIN]

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1330475438' post='5846921']
so it'd be like Ring of Destruction then
[/quote]The damage part, yeah. I like risky games. They're more fun.

[ragnarok1945]

will be hell once combined with Ring of Def in here.....

[thekazu4u]

The dancer in the flames is a very bad card. Nobody is going to use it. Why? well, in order to tell you, I need to understand how the card works, so I am fixing the OCG:
[QUOTE]
LORE: If "Burn" is not on the field: Destroy this card. If this card would leave the field: You can tribute 1 other monster you control instead. You can Special Summon this card (from your hand) by banishing a FIRE monster in your hand. Once per turn, when your opponent takes battle damage: Your opponent can discard up to 6 cards from his/her hand and increase their Life Points by 500x this number. Then your opponent draws 2 cards and reduces his own Life Points by 3000.
[/quote]
At least this is what I am FAIRLY sure you meant. I don't claim for this to be completely correct OCG (I am worried about "reduces his own Life Points by 3000), but it is closer. Anyways, lets look at what this effect does:

1. It requires another continuous spell card to be out while it is on the field.
2. It is a -1 Special Summon, that requires a FIRE monster in hand OR a -1 Normal Summon that requires a monster on the field.
3. It is a -2 when inflicting battle damage (they draw 2) except you inflict 3000 direct damage (6*500). Yes, this is a hefty amount, but they can negate some of it by discarding card(s).
4. When removed from the field it is still a -1, but you can choose another monster to be that -1 other than it.

Basically these are the 4 parts of the card. Part 1 is obviously terrible, as specific 2 card combos are annoying to use. Part 2 is obviously bad, as -1s are never good and the Special Summoning part does not make up for it, esp. bcz it has to be a FIRE monster. Lets skip part 3 for a sec, bcz it is complicated. Part 4 is meh, but it is nothing like a Zenmaines where it turns -1s into +1s, so I am going to discount this for the moment. It hardly means anything where they can simply kill Burn instead of it and get rid of it that way (oh look another -1).

Ok, back to part 3. Yea, 3000 damage is a lot. Problem is, giving them a pot of greed without even using a card in their hand is even more. If there was a card: "Pay 3000 Life Points, draw 2 card" I guarantee you it would see play. This is really even better than giving this to your opponent bcz it is a +2 not a +1 as this card would be. You say that it is mandatory: I say that just balances out the part that it is a +2 not a +1, especially because if they want to they can discard cards to negate it. (Zomg this vs. Dark World). Also, the damage HAS to be battle damage, and burn decks do not do any battle damage, so it would require an extremely dedicated deck.

Conclusion: Burn is a very good card for Burn. Although it is boring and could possibly be bad for the game (simply because it helps burn, but it is up to debate whether that is bad for the game) it would see some play. The Dancer in the Flames card is meh even when you bring it out, is a -1 on summon, and is practically a guaranteed -1 soon when they kill burn. Also, you are giving them +2s fairly routinely. And all this for a 2 card combo? Noty. It would see no play, AND it supports burn. Thus, bad.