x If you're looking for a specific comment, check the other printings as well.
Player Rating:
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
Community Rating: 4.104 / 5  (48 votes)
The player rating is the overall rating for the card taking into account all player rating votes.

 
Popular Comments
Hide Comments
Only show me comments rated:
 stars.
12 >
If only my farts were blue, spherical and had spikes in it, I could counter spells.
Posted By: Paslode3 (8/11/2010 12:54:03 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


@ Kryptnyt: Actually "Strictly better" doesn't means "better in any scenario". It means that comparing two cards, a card has better values than another, given the rest unchanged. For examples Lightning Bolt is better than Shock, because, for the same price and the same "speed" (i.e. "instant") you can deal 3 damages instead of 2... Given your definition, the same isn't true anymore because against Brace for Impact or Temper or Test of Faith you could put an addictional counter on the creature, so Lightining Bolt would be worse than Shock...

With Complicate you could counter something forcing the opponent to spend 3 more, or you could cycle it to draw a card, or to draw a card AND counter a spell forcing the opponent to spend 1 more.
In this case, Complicate isn't tecnically strictly better than Runeboggle because the ability to counter AND draw is not exa... (see all)
Posted By: leomistico (6/25/2011 4:58:51 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


@Azrael1911: Cycling is a triggered ability. Activated abilities use the stack. When a split second card is on the stack, no other spells or abilities can be played. Therefore, it can't counter split-second.

@leomistico: "Strictly better" means that a card does everything another card does and either does it better, does it cheaper, or does other things. This is why Goblin Chieftain is not strictly better than Goblin King despite being a superior card.

"Strictly better" has a very specific meaning. It's not "more useful." There's already a term for that. It's "better."
Posted By: Lyoncet (6/19/2011 11:58:35 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Interesting choice of pose.
Posted By: A3Kitsune (2/16/2010 10:34:23 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


ALMOST strictly better than Runeboggle.
Posted By: Literais (3/5/2010 1:26:27 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Alright Literais, I'll bite. How is this not strictly better than Runeboggle?
Posted By: UNBAN_SHAHRAZAD (3/23/2010 7:55:36 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


simple to cycle
Posted By: ttian (3/27/2009 9:13:56 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Cycling this is like playing a Runeboggle that's harder to counter, though that is irrelevant because if they had mana to counter a Runeboggle, they'd just pay the {1} to render it a harmless cyling effect. Casting this is like playing an overpriced Mana Leak. Eh. If I wanted to counter something and draw a card, I'd tear up any copy of Runebooger I could find, and then put Remand in an Isochron Scepter.
Posted By: DacenOctavio (9/10/2011 2:29:06 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


strictly better than mana leak
Posted By: gromgrom777 (7/28/2010 6:27:31 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


@UNBAN_SHAHRAZAD: Suppression Field.
@DespisedIcon: He was asking why it isnt "strictly better," which means "better in any scenario." You would want Runeboggle if Suppression Field is in play and you only have three mana and not five to work with. I know why this card is stronger overall, but I reinforce the fact that it is not "strictly" better.
Posted By: Kryptnyt (9/16/2010 6:32:26 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0