0_1492015398430_By Force.png
I know Shattering Spree doesn't see a lot of play these days, but this is better than it in a lot of cases, right? While it's an additional colorless for the first one, generating additional colorless seems a lot easier than generating additional red mana for each target after the first.

last edited by revengeanceful

Shame this site doesn't have a "Like" button.

It does, though. Its the little carrot in the bottom right corner of posts!

@revengeanceful This card is easier to splash, sure, but it's also easier to counter. One of the nice things about Shattering Spree was that you could target the same artifact with 5 copies of the spell, making it nigh impossible to counter.

I think the other big use case was getting around Chalice (sneaky sneaky) and this does that just as well.

last edited by MaximumCDawg

Cards like this put a premium on running a full complement of Moxen, something that Shops best matchup, Pyromancer, does not typically want to run. I wonder how this would change the way folks approach building their Grixis Pyromancer lists. Also, this is nutty with a flipped Baby Jace...I wonder if this (in the long term) would turn the defacto blind G2 revoker from Dack to Baby Jace?

Interesting card. I think if you compare this directly to the most played artifact hate right now, it's going to come up short. You're just not going to swap out a Fragmentize for this – but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

I've long believed that a well built anti-workshop plan requires a mix of inexpensive (but low-impact) and high-impact (but expensive) answers. Ingot Chewer was always a neat option because it scaled from a 1 mana one-for-one to a 5 mana two-for-one in the late game. Shattering Spree does the same in decks with high red counts.

That's where this card interests me, as a 1 or 2-of finisher in a deck that runs red but can't support Shattering Spree. I think the extra mana this costs over Fragmentize/Nature's Claim is going to prevent it from being a primary gameplan – but a card doesn't have to be a primary gameplan to be correct.

I'm feeling rather dusty this morning. Can somebody refresh me on how X works with sphere taxing?

I think I might be confused by EE sunburn. If I cast for 0 paying R only and a sphere makes me paying 1R, the extra 1 doesn't count toward X correct?

@tribet Yeah, spheres add 1 on top of whatever else you're paying.

You're thinking of Trinisphere. In that very special case, the Trini doesn't do anything until you're done deciding what X is. Then, it will add to the cost to make sure it costs at least 3. So, if you cast this at 2R, then Trinisphere is happy and will do nothing more. If you cast it at 1R, then Trinishpere will make it cost 2R anyway so you shouldnt do that.

@MaximumCDawg Ok but the extra 1 from the sphere doesn't count toward X.

For Trinisphere every mana beyond R counts toward X

@tribet Well, yeah. If Trinisphere forces you to pay anything ,that thing goes to pay it's tax just like it goes to pay Thorn/SoR's tax. It's just that, in the case of Trini specifically, you can avoid the problem by makin sure the spell already costs 3 or more.

With Y spheres, this things costs R + X + Y*1?

@tribet With Y Spheres of Resistance / Thorn / Thalia, yes.

  • 14
  • 6880