Or, you could run four of each. Very doable.
Posted By:
Kryptnyt
(1/15/2010 7:22:42 PM)
This again. You all sound like this random copy card consume spirit came first, but Drain Life is an oldschool supercard, and back in the days it was a natural part of the traditional mono-black deck alongside clas-sics like Sengir Vampire, Hypnotic Specter, Nightmare, Royal Assassin, and Dark Ritual etc.
Still today it works fine with cards like Rain of Filth and Cabal Ritual.
Posted By:
Dragejaegeren
(9/7/2010 10:54:54 AM)
There was actually a third instance where the "but not more than the player's life total" mattered. At the time this was first printed, you didn't lose immediately for having zero life: You had until the end of the current phase to get back up into the positives. Granted, it hardly ever mattered, but it could.
Posted By:
sonorhC
(7/2/2011 8:20:59 PM)
i love to drain life for 60... :D
Posted By:
Barliman
(11/25/2010 5:58:29 AM)
it took me a while to realize why they made the 'but not more life than the player's life total before Drain Life dealt damage' bit.. i can think of two instances this clause would matter. the most common being multiplayer games. the second one being Test of Endurance/Felidar Sovereign in either a multiplayer game or one where your opponent doesn't lose for having 0 life.
Posted By:
BastianQoU
(6/22/2011 3:33:37 AM)
Consume Spirit + "clause of confusion" = this.
Posted By:
Vinifera7
(9/10/2009 4:27:17 PM)
NOT identical to Consume Spirit. Examples: Furnace of Rath for greater life-gain or Safe Passage/Protean Hydra for no life-gain.
I would, in general though, say Consume Spirit is better.
Posted By:
Ragamander
(12/31/2009 3:39:34 AM)
Consume Spirit is better
Posted By:
Qazior
(7/7/2009 8:51:42 AM)
Identical with Consume spirit. A good card.
Posted By:
Crabby
(6/25/2009 1:34:58 PM)
@BastionQoU
They put in the "not more life than toughness of creature/life of player" clause because you can't drain more than someone has.... It's not a game decision, it's a flavor decision.
It doesn't matter at all for life, because this card precedes multiplayer formats by many, many years. It matters when you try to double-dip by simultaneously killing an annoying critter and gaining massive amounts of life. (For example, if you're playing mono-black, at 2 life, facing down a Serra Angel and a Circle of Protection: Black. You can kill the angel, save yourself, and and gain 4 life, but you can't kill the angel and pump in enough mana to gain a further 8 life.)
The clause was removed from newer descendants because life gain is not that good, it's pricey, and it just makes the text too long. Removing the clause is also not a game decision so much as a text formatting decision.
Posted By:
longwinded
(4/17/2012 6:34:41 PM)