It would seem that nobody wants to take a chance on Essence of the Wild. There are several conceivable ways to abuse him i.e. hero of blade hold attacking the turn you play EotW, Elspeth pumping out three 6/6 the turn you play EotW, either Garruk pumping out 6/6 the turn you play EotW, a myr turbine would even pump out a free 6/6 every turn (granted that is a bit of a stretch), even a myr sire dying the turn you play EotW gives you an extra 6/6. All of these scenarios make amazing use out of EotW. That is six ways to get value out of EotW without having to play a spell after he resolves. The great thing is, all of these stay in standard after rotation.
Compare that to the titan, who can get lands, to either generate more mana (unnecessary) or to get the new pump land (ok I will admit that land becomes a win condition with that much mana, even if the only creature you have left is an elf). I now realize that you can also get an inkmoth nexus at the same time as the pump land(which would result in a two turn clock effectively). Even so, that is three for the titan and six for EotW.
The rundown is as follows: EotW- six good but easily killable methods of abusing (not counting living weapons or token producers that cost more mana to use) and Titan- two viable, difficult to remove, consistent win conditions. Wow! I started this post to make a case for EotW, but now I am feeling that the Titan has still got a shot in postrotation standard. Anyway, that is just something to think about before you say that EotW has no use.
I just want to remind everyone who is talking about putting the ruinator into pod decks, there is a 5/6 for 2 that you can get by sacking your BoP. Myr Superion has gotten no love in pod decks, so why do you all think that for one more mana a flyer with the same p/t will see widespread play? Also, the ruinator dies to at least one more kill spell than the superion (who again sees no play). So I for one see the ruinator being great in larger formats (like all the ones that have access to aether vial or dredge), but it won't have a great impact on standard.
The EotW, on the other hand, only has a chance of seeing play in standard. When I say that I mean, he easily can go into a g/w deck that runs hero of bladehold but that is about it. This is the only conceivable way to get value out of him on the turn he comes into play. I think two 7/6 attacking your opponent is comparable to a titan's EtB, but that requires an additional card to get any value.
So what I am really trying to say is, in the right deck both of these cards can be awesome, but right now the format doesn't favor those deck builds. As the format stands, both of these will be fringe cards that show up here and there but aren't staples by any far cry.
I am not saying that they will forget about it (I should rephrase). By wreck I mean effectively remove certain abilities or cards from the game. The best weapon is the one you never have to fire. Taking away 1 of Tezzeret's 3 abilities is just fine by me. It also renders many cards dead (as is the case with all burn spells). If this just sits out and makes your opponent hold onto certain cards then it has accomplished the goal of effectively countering those cards without them being cast and without you having to activate spellskite. Also, what is the point of casting a tumble magnet if it is just going to tap a 0/4 every turn? Many good cards are not worth it with this guy out.
The only reason I am ranting about this is because I love making combo decks, and this makes that easier to do. If my opponent needs to have 2 removal spells to break up my combo instead of 1, then all the better for me.
I am surprised that nobody mentioned that this totally wrecks Tezzeret's second ability. It also can redirect BOTH targets of arc trail if you pay 2, which nullifies any card advantage from that spell and makes it a 1 for 0 trade instead of a 1 for 2 trade. Additionally it can redirect shape anew (which isn't too relevant, but funny none the less). Overall this is my favorite card in the set (for now at least).
I will have to agree with the overwhelming sentiment that this card is not terribly good.
Having said that, if it can be placed in a deck that uses life loss in exchange for some effect like card draw (i.e. dark tutelage, sign in blood, moriok replica, etc.) and repay in kind then it could in fact contribute to winning the game (by allowing you to stabilize at 0 life until you can cast repay in kind for the win). Even if you just use the new phyrexian artifacts like hex parasite to get your life total to 0 and then cast repay in kind you can still win the game.
I would just like to note, this scenario still does not make phyrexian unlife a good/worthwhile card nor does this scenario make repay in kinda a good/worthwhile card.
Once again, the result of this interaction is strictly based on whether rule 614 (replacement) or 114 (choosing new targets) are applied. In the case of replacement effects (614 and any action containing instead) the original targeting event never occurs, therefore causing the precursor golem to never trigger. In the case of rule 114 the targeting occurs and then is changed, resulting in all the other golems getting blasted.
Thus my original question stands relevant, and until we can answer that we can only speculate with no definitive answers.
Does the translation of Spellsplitter contain the word (or analogous word) instead? If it does, does that mean it creates a replacement effect as per rule 614.1a? Will Spellsplitter's ability then follow rules 114.6a (choosing new targets) or 614.6 (replacing targeting event)?
If this card in fact says "targets ~ instead" that creates a replacement effect according to comprehensive rule 614.1a. Replacement effects are able to request illegal actions be taken, which then fizzle upon resolution according to rule 614.6. Therefore if the card does in fact read "targets ~ instead" you can move GFTT, condemn, and equipment assignments; however, they will simply fizzle upon resolution.
Also, if it is a replacement effect this card can save a precursor golem. When a replacement effect takes place it cancels the event that it replaces effectively making it so the golem was never targeted, and therefore negating the golem's trigger according to rule 614.7.
Conversely, if the text says "change the target to ~" (without the word instead anywhere in sight) it creates a redirection effect which will check to ensure the new target is legal before redirection as per rule 114.6.
Compare that to the titan, who can get lands, to either generate more mana (unnecessary) or to get the new pump land (ok I will admit that land becomes a win condition with that much mana, even if the only creature you have left is an elf). I now realize that you can also get an inkmoth nexus at the same time as the pump land(which would result in a two turn clock effectively). Even so, that is three for the titan and six for EotW.
The rundown is as follows: EotW- six good but easily killable methods of abusing (not counting living weapons or token producers that cost more mana to use) and Titan- two viable, difficult to remove, consistent win conditions. Wow! I started this post to make a case for EotW, but now I am feeling that the Titan has still got a shot in postrotation standard. Anyway, that is just something to think about before you say that EotW has no use.
The EotW, on the other hand, only has a chance of seeing play in standard. When I say that I mean, he easily can go into a g/w deck that runs hero of bladehold but that is about it. This is the only conceivable way to get value out of him on the turn he comes into play. I think two 7/6 attacking your opponent is comparable to a titan's EtB, but that requires an additional card to get any value.
So what I am really trying to say is, in the right deck both of these cards can be awesome, but right now the format doesn't favor those deck builds. As the format stands, both of these will be fringe cards that show up here and there but aren't staples by any far cry.
The only reason I am ranting about this is because I love making combo decks, and this makes that easier to do. If my opponent needs to have 2 removal spells to break up my combo instead of 1, then all the better for me.
Having said that, if it can be placed in a deck that uses life loss in exchange for some effect like card draw (i.e. dark tutelage, sign in blood, moriok replica, etc.) and repay in kind then it could in fact contribute to winning the game (by allowing you to stabilize at 0 life until you can cast repay in kind for the win). Even if you just use the new phyrexian artifacts like hex parasite to get your life total to 0 and then cast repay in kind you can still win the game.
I would just like to note, this scenario still does not make phyrexian unlife a good/worthwhile card nor does this scenario make repay in kinda a good/worthwhile card.
Thus my original question stands relevant, and until we can answer that we can only speculate with no definitive answers.
Also, if it is a replacement effect this card can save a precursor golem. When a replacement effect takes place it cancels the event that it replaces effectively making it so the golem was never targeted, and therefore negating the golem's trigger according to rule 614.7.
Conversely, if the text says "change the target to ~" (without the word instead anywhere in sight) it creates a redirection effect which will check to ensure the new target is legal before redirection as per rule 114.6.