@Lyoncet They probably wouldn't because it is too world-specific.
Also, I'm going to take this opportunity to call multiflashback in Dark Ascension.
Posted By:
JFM2796
(9/22/2011 3:55:29 PM)
5/5. there is never any reason for red not to including 4x of this in every single deck they ever make.
Posted By:
Eternal_Blue
(9/27/2011 12:22:37 PM)
Would sound less Satanic if they moved the comma over. Just saying.
Edit:
Derp. Apostrophe, not comma! ><
On Innistrad, "devils" are vicious little imp-like minor demons. In Christianity, "the Devil" aka Satan is "the personification of evil and the enemy of God and humankind" (--Wikipedia). There is no "Devil" on Innistrad, only "devils" (...and Griselbrand, a major demon). The placement of the apostrophe implies a single "Devil", not multiple "devils", at play. There would be no ambiguity in the name "Devils' play". Maybe this doesn't matter in 2012, but back in 1994 there were actual soccer moms concerned that MtG was linked to Devil-worship. Compare 3rd & 4th Editions' Unholy Strength.
Posted By:
HuntingDrake
(11/5/2012 3:50:23 PM)
Got one at the Prerelease and splashed 
specifically for it. Never pulled it though... :-( Seems like a typical Fireball/Blaze revamp to me. I'm not sold on it being a Rare though. Especially with that nigh unsplashable flashback cost. Should have been uncommon, in my opinion.
Now if it would have exiled like Red Sun's Zenith in this graveyard happy block or had some graveyard based alt-cost (similar to Harvest Pyre), we might be talking...
@HuntingDrake
What are you talking about? There is not a single comma on the card. There is a few apostrophes, though. But even then it only would make 'Devil' plural. So multiple 'devils' is less satanic than a single one? O_o
Posted By:
OmegaSerris
(9/25/2011 7:48:03 AM)
currently looking at this card for Kaalia EDH- be straight now, and tell me:
Devil's Play? or Red Sun's Zenith? or both? or neither?
Comet Storm is a board wipe, but ^those two^ are repeatable, which should make them reasonable contenders. Any comments?
Posted By:
DarthParallax
(11/1/2011 4:58:41 AM)
Is this card good? Yes... but I don't know if it's good enough for constructed, I'm thinking maybe not...
But it's a nice little EDH card.
Posted By:
Anubisisking
(10/1/2011 2:01:03 PM)
Considering how many people considers playing Geistflame, this card truly shines as a hidden gem yet to be discovered in Standard. Okay, if this is used as a Geistflame, it costs one more and is a sorcery. However, this in most cases isn't going to be used as a Geistflame, save for the flashback. Turn 1 Illusion killer, turn 2 Gutshot, turn 3 Shock, turn 4 Incinerate, turn 5 and up: best spell to have in hand.
Posted By:
001010011100101110
(10/15/2011 2:42:03 PM)
Love this so much, it works amazingly in my Delver Standard. So much of Innistrad and M12's Red is overlooked...
Posted By:
Shadoflaam
(11/17/2011 1:26:23 PM)
Any clue why this is listed in gatherer as "Devil's Play (Devil's Play)"?
Posted By:
willpell
(1/28/2012 1:23:05 AM)
That’s super solid, super hot. You get the essence of fireball, and you get a very reasonable flashback cost. There really is no loss or much drawback for slotting a set of these in your red/burn decks, especially because you’re getting at least double the spell opportunity. Once again, very respectful flashback cost, and during the latter rounds the flashback cost leaves you with plenty of mana to pump it.
How can this card be better? If it was an instant. Do I really expect it to be an instant? No. This card is pretty much exactly the way it should be; well done.
Lots of fun in the artwork and sizzling flavour text. 4½ stars.
Posted By:
Chrs84
(4/14/2012 4:43:44 PM)