The thing I find most confusing is the fact that this depends on wizards, not face-down creatures, as I'd expect from a card associated with Ixidor. Well, he's a wizard himself, so I guess it's sorta justified...
Posted By:
Tiggurix
(11/2/2010 5:22:40 AM)
Wow, I guess Ixidor never learned Counterspell
Posted By:
Matt_The_Phat
(3/6/2010 11:24:37 AM)
Anime
Posted By:
MasterOfEtherium
(5/29/2009 11:12:05 PM)
So... it's worse than counterspell AND worse than Cancel ? The only advantage it was over those cards is its splashableness (is that a word ?) Might as well use Rune Snag or Mana Leak.
Posted By:
Belz_
(7/4/2010 4:49:37 AM)
I can't understand some people . . I know this card is weak but don't demand unreasonable effect . .
: counter target spell unless its controller pays 
for each Wizard on the battlefield
It basically becomes a 1 cmc counter spell without any restriction.
I'm pretty sure Wizards is not THAT stupid anymore.
Posted By:
Hoonster
(3/21/2011 5:35:47 AM)
Should cost {U} and say: "Counter target spell unless its controller pays {1} for each Wizard on the battlefield."
Or be one mana cheaper.
Posted By:
skew
(3/9/2010 7:14:03 AM)
hmm okay 3cmc hard counter for a wizard tribal... wait!
Posted By:
Imperialstonedragon
(3/25/2011 11:09:29 AM)
wizards in play would be a restriction...1u would be ok. or maybe 5u with affinity to wizards.
this is just silly^^
Posted By:
rawsugar
(4/14/2011 7:41:32 AM)
There was a Mana Leak for 2U, which also cantrips if you have a Wizard... (what was its name again?)
Posted By:
Gabriel422
(6/14/2011 7:33:29 PM)
Dance Magic/Dance Magic Dance/Dance Magic/Dance Magic Dance
Put that Magic spell on me/ Slap that baby, make him free!
Posted By:
Lord_Ascapelion
(5/31/2012 7:52:52 PM)