Every blue spell is better with a splash of red. Look at Grixis! Dead and loving it, those undead folks.
Posted By:
DacenOctavio
(7/26/2011 12:13:18 AM)
The forking/doubling aspect is where red comes in.
Useful against cascade, but overpriced for anything else.
Posted By:
MaxFAn
(5/16/2009 10:06:39 AM)
C-C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
...I'm sorry, I'll never say that again. But this is a pretty interesting card. 3CMC like cancel, except it can hit a second spell. It has the potential to mess up combos, and even if you only hit one spell with it, it's not like you got overcharged...not by much at least.
Posted By:
Reversed
(8/19/2012 1:22:59 AM)
To answer the question why it is Blue, Red. The set has only gold cards, so in order to do that they needed to make it multicolored. And the only other color that has counter spells is red.
Posted By:
Deathtamoor
(5/31/2009 11:27:02 PM)
Cool artwork, anti cascade, the cascade can be countered...
Posted By:
Mprime818
(7/20/2009 7:35:53 AM)
Not very good at all. Why is it red? When would there be two enemy spells on the stack in the first place?
Posted By:
Th3_Dark_On3
(5/1/2009 4:19:18 PM)
@Grimn777
In general, I think you are correct. However, I would argue that using proper English -- which I assume is what you were referring to when you said "intelligent English" -- isn't necessarilly always superior. Communicating is not about using proper English. It is about communicating what you are saying. Although it is true that very often communicating is best done by using proper English (for English-speaking people that is), but not always.
If you wish to argue about communication further I suggest we do it somewhere else -- as this is a place for discussing cards, not language.
As for this card, it can be useful at times.
Posted By:
VirtueVsVice
(11/7/2009 4:29:45 PM)
cool card not sure what makes it red. very limited in its usefullness.
Posted By:
davidhuman
(4/26/2009 12:32:48 PM)
This card is most powerful when used against a combo that can only work by playing a spell before the other resolves.
Posted By:
Cleansingfire
(1/18/2011 8:39:41 PM)
"as already mentioned, the functionality isn't too useful"... remember, english is our friend. it allows us to communicate. let's break this one down. "as already mentioned". unless this is followed up with a yoda-style phrase, like "as already mentioned, it was", this is incomprehensible. needing a "was", or reconfiguring. "the functionality isn't too useful". while grammatically correct, rather inane. functionality is not the same as function. functionality is a concept, not unlike happiness, or peace, that is a noun, yet is not an attribute of the card nor is it an object. "the (object) isn't too useful" makes complete sense. however, this fails when the object becomes indefinite. for example, "the happiness isn't too useful". the "the" in the sentence refers to a specific, and the noun is by nature obscure and indefinite. As we can see, incorrect.
Besides those issues, you are basically saying that the function of the card isn't useful. the card only does one thing, and if that on... (see all)
Posted By:
Grimn777
(9/6/2009 12:51:27 AM)