I will need at least 3 of these. Throwing a few in my Werewolf deck unless I dismantle for Gruul and going to sb 1. This card is one of my favorite shown so far. I really have to say that Gruul is surprising me. Unless Simic and Orz can out do the cards I've seen (yes, I am counting the simic guildmage), I am going to go with Gruul for the pre-release.
Very high pick in draft. Possibly worth splashing for both colors if P3P1. You want to play this late, anyway-- breaks through stalemates, can be a total blowout.
I'm curious to see what common/uncommon fixing there is in GC (beyond the Gates.)
Very high pick in draft. Possibly worth splashing for both colors if P3P1. You want to play this late, anyway-- breaks through stalemates, can be a total blowout.
I'm curious to see what common/uncommon fixing there is in GC (beyond the Gates.)
Gates and Keyrunes. I doubt you'll want to splash both colors for it... too chancey without the inevitable green mana-fixing. And if you're in green for the fixing, well, then that isn't a splash. Easily bomby enough if you're in one of the colors, though.
Easily my favorite Gruul card so far. Need a playset for my Gruul Control deck. Too good of removal to pass up.
Favorite set: Arabian Nights Favorite planeswalker: Taysir, the One Made of Five Favorite book cycle: Ice Age Favorite creature type(s): Elephant (W), Minotaur (R), Shade (B), Spider (G), Cephalid (U) Myr (Artifact) Standard: Gruul Control Modern: American Human Tempo; Zombie Tribal EDH: Aboshan, Cephalid Emperor Cube: The Moons of Mirrodin
Before I was really having trouble deciding what guild to go with, but this is making a real good argument :P
But I have a question with the way it's worded. Does that mean that I get to hit two creatures, one with and one without flying, and a player or just one creature, of either persuasion, and a player?
Before I was really having trouble deciding what guild to go with, but this is making a real good argument :P
But I have a question with the way it's worded. Does that mean that I get to hit two creatures, one with and one without flying, and a player or just one creature, of either persuasion, and a player?
Option A. You will ideally be doling out X times 3 damage in total.
Seems to me that you can get all 3 if there are 3 viable targets. Unless you are playing against a deck that does not have flying creatures in it, or only flying creatures, most of the time you will be able to kill 2 creatures and burn for 3 on turn 5.
This is defintely a late game card/finisher in limited and constructed, especially if there is some mana ramp in this set.
It's WORSE than Comet Storm and even Fireball BECAUSE it's also Green. As noted above, it is this way to justify being Green. There is no reason Red fireballs cannot hit creatures with flying, and indeed the only conflict is where you have Earthquake vs. Hurricane when it comes to fliers, and this is not a sweeper in that sense. Nothing about this card screams Green, or even suggests it, to the exclusion of being Gruul.
You missed the point of my statement. MonoRed covers all the bases when it comes to design here. There is no reason in recent design that red should be restricted to nonfliers, and indeed as previous compared cards have shown, is especially not the case. Green's recent (as of the last three blocks or so) flier hate has revolved around destroying the things outright.
Your own example of Earthquake disagrees, as does the M13 Magmaquake . Red can usually hit flying, but when it does get limitations, it's a limitation on flying creatures. And the way that Branching Bolt and this card are designed are to specifically hit flying creatures, along with other creatures. That's the green flavor. If this was a mono red card, it would say, 'X -Deal X damage to target opponent and a target creature that opponent controls.' The green flavor is hitting the opponent, a non-flier and a flier.
If this card cost X, it would be Comet Storm . The words "flying" and "nonflying" appear no where on the card. This card is Green and has this restriction because it is giving Green something of value on the card; but by which it limits it. It might also be Savage Twister , which ALSO lacked the fault this card has by not specifying an ability.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
So because Comet Storm doesn't have the non-flying limitation, despite that there are more than a few red cards that do have that limitation, this card is "trying too hard" and forcibally green. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I see where this card makes sense from a design stand-point; you do not.
Favorite set: Arabian Nights Favorite planeswalker: Taysir, the One Made of Five Favorite book cycle: Ice Age Favorite creature type(s): Elephant (W), Minotaur (R), Shade (B), Spider (G), Cephalid (U) Myr (Artifact) Standard: Gruul Control Modern: American Human Tempo; Zombie Tribal EDH: Aboshan, Cephalid Emperor Cube: The Moons of Mirrodin
Thunderbolt hits creatures with flying. I would think Lightning is flavor wise is fine against flying and then lava or earthquakes wouldn't be able to. So, red does one or the other or something.
