Why would grammar say that the first and third can be the same? They...just aren't. That isn't how it works. You are picking a third creature.
It's pretty good overall coverage. You can either kill a few things or just cripple a number of creatures combat wise.
Posted By:
Elysiume
(12/25/2009 10:26:42 AM)
Cone of Rot.
Posted By:
TheLibertinistic
(12/31/2010 4:14:19 PM)
It's a good card, can kill creatures like Cho Manno, which prevents damage, and also prevents persist.
Posted By:
Demage
(11/1/2009 10:16:40 AM)
Combo with Necroskitter to not only kill your opponent's 1/1, 2/2 and 3/3, but bring them over to your side after.
Posted By:
SoulsDescend
(8/17/2010 7:56:14 PM)
Bestial Menace cries itself to sleep when it hears about this card.
Posted By:
WokeUpDead
(6/18/2011 7:58:03 PM)
although it's not very cheap, this card has some potential.
you can spread a total of six -1/-1 counters across three creatures.
yet , in some bad cases you'll have to chooe your own ones.
fortunately if you're lucky you are able to prevent hostile persist effects to trigger.
Posted By:
Mode
(7/2/2009 2:48:50 PM)
I love how this is the opposite of incremental growth... good flavorwise going from lorwyn to shadownmoor
Posted By:
catowner
(10/29/2010 5:40:11 PM)
Grammar says that the first and third targets can be the same. Rules say no.
Posted By:
psyklone
(12/22/2009 3:34:39 PM)
Can target black creatures, indestructible creatures and can potentially give you a 3-for-1. The sorcery speed combined with a heavy casting cost for removal hurts this card quite a bit...but it has its places in the right deck list.
Posted By:
tcollins
(12/16/2010 5:34:54 PM)
It's very fun when you're able to cast it, but the major drawback is that there needs to be at least three creatures on the field or else you can't cast it.
Posted By:
Vinifera7
(5/30/2011 7:40:33 AM)