Why not just use Cinder Pyromancer with Phyresis???? Same cost to play them, but you can stack poison counters by casting multiple red spells.....
Posted By:
RuleOfZod
(6/27/2011 7:11:29 PM)
Kinda overcosted, don't you think?
Posted By:
chinkeeyong
(4/29/2011 1:38:48 AM)
hmmm... if you target an undying creature w/ a +1/+1 counter on it, during state based actions the counters will be removed, now we have neverdying.
Posted By:
KnexWiz
(3/9/2012 12:28:35 PM)
I would much rather his frail body as a 0/3 or 0/4...even a 0/2 would be better...but as a 1/1 for {3}{R}? Even with infect, no thanks.
Posted By:
tcollins
(5/17/2011 2:10:29 PM)
So Prodigal Pyromancer with infect costs a total of 1 extra and 2 for the tap effect?
I would rather have a rare card that was pyromancer with infect for 3. At least keep it the same cmc and only cost 
for the tap effect. Infects power was from pump spells not sustained anyways.
.5/5 for what could have been.
Posted By:
TheWrathofShane
(4/16/2013 6:04:51 AM)
Shoulda costed R to ping things. But then that would be too powerful with infect.
Posted By:
ThisisSakon
(4/28/2011 6:14:39 PM)
And once again we have the cinders from Shadowmoor moping around.
Posted By:
Kryptnyt
(4/29/2011 4:57:03 PM)
May be the cheapest repeatable indirect essential 2 damage ever. At least less complicated than Gelectrode or similar cards.
But hey ignore all that, this should completely rule in limited.
Posted By:
SeiberTross
(5/4/2011 12:01:55 PM)
I really, really wish this guy were a 2/3.
Posted By:
Polychromatic
(5/7/2011 11:01:13 AM)
quite overcosted, but is my new favorite infect card.
Posted By:
iPreferStormCrow
(5/7/2011 4:39:40 PM)