I have no issues with burn hitting only creatures or only players....
but at least give us Flame Slash and Lava Spike, for the gods sake.
If we can't have lightning bolt, having half of it would be nice....
Those are better than 99.9% of other commons for what they do. Your expectations are far too high if you think that level of effect will be printed often (if ever again). Of course, those cards are always available in eternal formats... come join the dark side. We have Lightning Bolts.
thing is....
a 3 mana card that deals 8472348957893247502734857234857845834828387243875287937849578092 to target creature is worse than Murder in a vacuum... i.e., barring effects like Boros Reckoner or something.
the advantage red removal had over white and black removal was that red removal wasn't a dead card if your opponent had no creatures, because you could simply go to face, while black and white removal tend to be unconditional kills, white even exiles.
and now, red gets creature burn.... for 3 mana. and that's not even sure to kill the creature.
creatures keep getting stronger... spells keep getting weaker. this is weird. lol.
I already play a lot more eternal than standard.
powerful spells are fun.
Also regeneration is as rare as panda's, protection of X has nearly gone the way of the dinosaurs, and indestructibility is rare and white/artifact only.
Therefor pure burn spells have gone much more the way of pure removal.
Now an uncommon near unrestricted removal spell for 3 cmc as instant? Pwetty decent if you ask me
Oh my goodness, the salt in this thread is unbelievable. Yes, clearly this will not be a constructed player. Yes, it is red. But it doesn't make sense to try to cram it into the "Selesnya OP" narrative, or the "we can't have modern's defining card in standard anymore, boohoo" narrative, because this card doesn't take up the pushed constructed burn spell slot or the cheap, simple, standard playable common burn slot.
It is a limited card, and it is a perfectly decent one. Very close in functionality to Blisterstick Shaman, which was one of the best commons in its set. Many people will have fun evaluating exactly when to pick it, and exactly how to play it, and it will have done exactly what it is supposed to do quite admirably. I understand that some people don't play limited, but they should recognize that every set is going to have 100+ cards that just aren't aimed at them, and it makes no sense to go into every single such thread and complain about that fact, especially when it is a card that has been correctly costed and will be something like a 2.0-2.5 in limited.
But look at what W got vs... well.. everyone. Red has almost complete Jank spoiled for them, and all that is left is filler. So yeah, R players are mad because we have been given complete crap. And no, this card is horrible. Sorcery speed, the token is a 1/1 vs Blistersticks 2/1, the token is in an irrelevant tribe, the token can't abuse ETB shenanigans, and just all around bad... 3 mana to do 1 damage is SUPER bad... hell, if it was instant it would be ok because you can surprise block and direct all the damage at the creature to make a sort of 3 mana bolt to it... but at sorcery, this card is crap.
And I am tired of seeing red being shat on -.-
The problem already starts with you identifying yourself as being a 'red' player instead of a magic player.
Everything from that point on means you will be biased towards every single magic card, and never will be able to evaluate a card objectively.
In fact, I am pretty certain that the card with the highest powerlevel in this set is red. Namely Bedlam Reveler.
This card has a very high likelyhood of getting banned in a format, and is incredibly pushed.
To finish this all of, even if red is underpowered compared to other colours in this block, it happens.
Powerlevels of colours always osciliate through magic history, and every single colour will get shafted now and then.
It is part of magic development.
So having a preferred color is wrong? I'm sorry but I love red.
The thing is, primary red decks have been shat on for a long while. While He decks have popped up, often they depend on lots of G cards.
It is not wrong having an affinity for a colour, but some people take it to an extreme, this causes them to emotionally look at cards. From your posts up till now it seems you are one of those.
Another example is your last sentence, RDW won the journey to Nix PT, which is 2 blocks ago.
Two blocks is not a 'long while' for magic standards, but for your feelings it surely is.
Oh my goodness, the salt in this thread is unbelievable. Yes, clearly this will not be a constructed player. Yes, it is red. But it doesn't make sense to try to cram it into the "Selesnya OP" narrative, or the "we can't have modern's defining card in standard anymore, boohoo" narrative, because this card doesn't take up the pushed constructed burn spell slot or the cheap, simple, standard playable common burn slot.
It is a limited card, and it is a perfectly decent one. Very close in functionality to Blisterstick Shaman, which was one of the best commons in its set. Many people will have fun evaluating exactly when to pick it, and exactly how to play it, and it will have done exactly what it is supposed to do quite admirably. I understand that some people don't play limited, but they should recognize that every set is going to have 100+ cards that just aren't aimed at them, and it makes no sense to go into every single such thread and complain about that fact, especially when it is a card that has been correctly costed and will be something like a 2.0-2.5 in limited.
But look at what W got vs... well.. everyone. Red has almost complete Jank spoiled for them, and all that is left is filler. So yeah, R players are mad because we have been given complete crap. And no, this card is horrible. Sorcery speed, the token is a 1/1 vs Blistersticks 2/1, the token is in an irrelevant tribe, the token can't abuse ETB shenanigans, and just all around bad... 3 mana to do 1 damage is SUPER bad... hell, if it was instant it would be ok because you can surprise block and direct all the damage at the creature to make a sort of 3 mana bolt to it... but at sorcery, this card is crap.
And I am tired of seeing red being shat on -.-
The problem already starts with you identifying yourself as being a 'red' player instead of a magic player.
Everything from that point on means you will be biased towards every single magic card, and never will be able to evaluate a card objectively.
In fact, I am pretty certain that the card with the highest powerlevel in this set is red. Namely Bedlam Reveler.
This card has a very high likelyhood of getting banned in a format, and is incredibly pushed.
To finish this all of, even if red is underpowered compared to other colours in this block, it happens.
Powerlevels of colours always osciliate through magic history, and every single colour will get shafted now and then.
It is part of magic development.
The lack of a may clause is necessary, it would be too oppressive otherwise. Without 'may', your opponent can destroy it be sacrificing a cheap spell. With 'may', you would simple let the small stuff through, and wait till he/she casts a big spell and counter that. That would be very unfun.
you just described counterspells.. it's really sad, that so many people (including RnD) think that's unfun. I like the mindgames, for both players, when playing a control game.
I quoted you, instead of the other posts regarding the publics vision on counterspell, because it was the least agressive.
The problem with counterspells is that the scenario you are describing rarely happens.
Ofcourse there would be games where player A baits out a counterspell with a lesser threat, only to resolve the threat the same or next turn after the control player wasted his counterspell.
In practice, this is rarely the case. As a non control player, the last thing you want to do is give your opponent time. Therefor you are forced to just play out your threats on curve, and pray your opponent does not have the answer. The problem arises when counterspells are equivalent cost or cheaper than the threats your opponent wants to play.
Now playing out multiple threats in one turn will be void, since the control player can spend the same amount of resources to deal with that threat.
In older formats this is less of an issue, since resolved cards are of such a threatlevel, that you will often win the game on the spot.
Now regarding the players feelings. As a non control player it will feel like playing a game of dice, instead of a game of skill.
You play your card, you roll a dice to see if your opponent has an answer, and that is all there is to it.
Restrictive or higher cost counterspells are the answer for this, it allows players to play around negate/spell snare/daze/mana leak.
However the latter 2 will not be printed again in standard, because they offer too much of a tempo advantage.
Been testing Reveler as a three of, and it seems absurd. You fetch a little differently as you sometimes need triple red to cast this and another red spell in the same turn. Sometimes it feels like a RR treasure cruise that you can replay with Vapor Snag.
Not sure about the counter suite, number of forked bolts, and whether to try twisted image atm. Cantrips are very important. Izzet Charm or similar seems necessary to filter multiple Revelers. Sometimes feel like I want four Revelers, but worry about multiples in hand. Thoughts?
Personally i think the biggest debate people will have if swiftspear is worth running, or that SCM is the better option.
Because Reveler is such a big threat when it is on the board, I think a better approach would be going for a more controlling version and gaining card advantage through SCM.
Revelers discard clause also helps with this, since you will be less hesitant of discarding a hand with usefull spells, if you know you can buy them back with SCM.
Also i think it is not necesary to use other cards to prevent having multiple Revelers in your hand. Card selection with sleight and serum should be sufficient, and even then discarding a second copy of reveler is not a big deal. Think of brainstorming and fetching, theoretically it only draws you 1 card, but in practice due to the power of card selection it is more like 2-3.
This all being said, i would replace the swiftspear with SCM, probe with sleight, and charm with mana leak.
Also I am not a big fan of running 4 copies of vapor snag. It can be a dead card against certain matchups, even if you have the option of bouncing your own creatures.
Also going up to 20 lands seems prudent since this deck wants to run with 4 lands in play.
We could really see a Bant Spirits deck rise right now, because the tribe has so much power and this one + Spectral Shepherd is simply gas! I'll try and get a set as soon as possible.
It is indeed really weird that they used the old templating for this card. In fact it might have been an oversight.
Good start, imho the secret in her power lies in comparing her to Jace, Architect of Thought.
Then when you realise they are almost the same card, however Lilly is one cheaper, she might be a whole lot better than most people think.
Except that lilly needs creatures in your grave for her -2 to be useful at all. And Architect's +1 is good against tokens. I think she'd be great in the right deck, but the right deck for her is a lot more narrow than the right deck for Architect.
I agree with you on Lilly fitting a more narrow deck, and yes those are the differences, but the overall design concept is very similar.
However you can not say the abilities are better / worse.
The +1 is debatably better for either hero depending on the board state and meta.
The -2 on lilly can potentially give you 3 cards, while in Jace case it only happens if your opponent is flirting with you.
So yes, they are the 'same' card, however 3 cmc being the magical number, she got a whole lot going for her
Also regeneration is as rare as panda's, protection of X has nearly gone the way of the dinosaurs, and indestructibility is rare and white/artifact only.
Therefor pure burn spells have gone much more the way of pure removal.
Now an uncommon near unrestricted removal spell for 3 cmc as instant? Pwetty decent if you ask me
Well.. with mirrodinlands sure.
Then again galvanic blast is equally undercosted, but not OP.
Or was SoM an op block?
That is a thing
Artifact destruction disagrees wih you
It is a 2/3 vanilla for 4 mana in modern.
Jeej....
Ah yes indeed, tx
Been waiting for that
It is not wrong having an affinity for a colour, but some people take it to an extreme, this causes them to emotionally look at cards. From your posts up till now it seems you are one of those.
Another example is your last sentence, RDW won the journey to Nix PT, which is 2 blocks ago.
Two blocks is not a 'long while' for magic standards, but for your feelings it surely is.
Here a link to the PT results:
http://www.manaleak.com/mtguk/2013/12/ptq-journey-into-nyx-top-8-decklists-from-fanboy3-manchester/
The problem already starts with you identifying yourself as being a 'red' player instead of a magic player.
Everything from that point on means you will be biased towards every single magic card, and never will be able to evaluate a card objectively.
In fact, I am pretty certain that the card with the highest powerlevel in this set is red. Namely Bedlam Reveler.
This card has a very high likelyhood of getting banned in a format, and is incredibly pushed.
To finish this all of, even if red is underpowered compared to other colours in this block, it happens.
Powerlevels of colours always osciliate through magic history, and every single colour will get shafted now and then.
It is part of magic development.
I quoted you, instead of the other posts regarding the publics vision on counterspell, because it was the least agressive.
The problem with counterspells is that the scenario you are describing rarely happens.
Ofcourse there would be games where player A baits out a counterspell with a lesser threat, only to resolve the threat the same or next turn after the control player wasted his counterspell.
In practice, this is rarely the case. As a non control player, the last thing you want to do is give your opponent time. Therefor you are forced to just play out your threats on curve, and pray your opponent does not have the answer. The problem arises when counterspells are equivalent cost or cheaper than the threats your opponent wants to play.
Now playing out multiple threats in one turn will be void, since the control player can spend the same amount of resources to deal with that threat.
In older formats this is less of an issue, since resolved cards are of such a threatlevel, that you will often win the game on the spot.
Now regarding the players feelings. As a non control player it will feel like playing a game of dice, instead of a game of skill.
You play your card, you roll a dice to see if your opponent has an answer, and that is all there is to it.
Restrictive or higher cost counterspells are the answer for this, it allows players to play around negate/spell snare/daze/mana leak.
However the latter 2 will not be printed again in standard, because they offer too much of a tempo advantage.
Personally i think the biggest debate people will have if swiftspear is worth running, or that SCM is the better option.
Because Reveler is such a big threat when it is on the board, I think a better approach would be going for a more controlling version and gaining card advantage through SCM.
Revelers discard clause also helps with this, since you will be less hesitant of discarding a hand with usefull spells, if you know you can buy them back with SCM.
Also i think it is not necesary to use other cards to prevent having multiple Revelers in your hand. Card selection with sleight and serum should be sufficient, and even then discarding a second copy of reveler is not a big deal. Think of brainstorming and fetching, theoretically it only draws you 1 card, but in practice due to the power of card selection it is more like 2-3.
This all being said, i would replace the swiftspear with SCM, probe with sleight, and charm with mana leak.
Also I am not a big fan of running 4 copies of vapor snag. It can be a dead card against certain matchups, even if you have the option of bouncing your own creatures.
Also going up to 20 lands seems prudent since this deck wants to run with 4 lands in play.
It is indeed really weird that they used the old templating for this card. In fact it might have been an oversight.
with either spectral shepherd or eldrazi displacer this card is basically a counterspell with buyback for 5 mana or 6.
No, this dies to doomblade, mongrel doesnt
I agree with you on Lilly fitting a more narrow deck, and yes those are the differences, but the overall design concept is very similar.
However you can not say the abilities are better / worse.
The +1 is debatably better for either hero depending on the board state and meta.
The -2 on lilly can potentially give you 3 cards, while in Jace case it only happens if your opponent is flirting with you.
So yes, they are the 'same' card, however 3 cmc being the magical number, she got a whole lot going for her