This spell doesn't target the player, so it gets around True Believer and Witchbane Orb.
Posted By:
SirZapdos
(11/29/2011 2:52:45 PM)
It is indeed odd, but Matt Tabak explained the reasons in the April 2009 Oracle update bulletin, here:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/35b&page=2
I love some of the really screwy wording that older cards get in Oracle rewordings. Caller of the Hunt got a similarly odd wording.
Posted By:
alextfish
(1/26/2012 3:20:53 AM)
Super Secret Ink-Treader Nephilim tech! Even if you're only at 1 life, you can just nuke your half of the board and Lava Axe each opponent for every creature they control!
Posted By:
UsagiYojimbo
(3/11/2012 4:50:05 PM)
This got some odd Oracle reworking. I'm sure there were some rule issues that probably provoked the new wording, but am I the only one who can't quite see what's wrong with the original? I think it's a little clearer, in fact.
Maybe it's just odd to basically choose how you'll divide up the damage "as an additional cost". That...really doesn't feel like a "cost". I know it changes timing and whatnot, but still, that doesn't read right.
Posted By:
DoctorKenneth
(5/24/2010 7:10:41 PM)
They reworded it because when you distribute damage amongst several targets, you must put at least 1 damage on each target. This stops you putting the whole 5 on either the creature or the player. Since the card was meant to do that, the new text allows this too.
Posted By:
robvalue
(7/18/2010 6:29:26 AM)
Thanks robvalue!
I thought that the reason was that the rules didn't allow you to divide the damage between the creature and the player since the player wasn't an actual target (cards usually let you divide among any nimber of "target" creatures or players).
Your explanation makes more sense, though.
Posted By:
marmaris74
(7/5/2011 9:17:40 PM)
WTH Oracle text? The original wording was more intuitive. Also, play this with Cowardice for a bounce + burn.
Posted By:
Earthdawn
(6/10/2013 6:02:06 AM)
Oh gawd the oracle text destroyed this card! lol I guess that means it has a 0% chance of being reprinted.
So derpy. I was reading the effect and was like 'wtf why is this so complicated?!?!', and then realised the oracle text derped it.
Damnit! Now I want a reprint so I can have the card with epicly derpy rules text.
Posted By:
SAUS3
(7/22/2013 9:41:14 AM)
Best. Cost. Ever.
Posted By:
SilentOppressor
(8/10/2013 8:24:45 PM)
The Oracle text is there to make it clear that you choose how to divide the damage when you cast it, not on resolution of the spell. You can assign 0 damage to either the creature or its controller, as it was originally intended.
Posted By:
blink182zombies
(1/15/2014 1:40:56 PM)