They way I see either outcome's worth the one mana. It's just the fact that you can't choose which one you get that holds the card back. Could be annoying having a burn spell that you just know won't kill their dudes but it's still a good card.
Posted By:
TPmanW
(4/12/2011 8:55:00 PM)
Yes it is worse than Bolt, so is... well basically every other 1cmc red burn spell ever. 1 mana for 3 damage to a creatue at instant speed is very good, 5 dmg to a players face for 1 mana would be beyond broken (turn 2 win with just a rite of lame?) and you usually want to blot creatures anyway so most of the time this acts pretty much the same, so I give it a 4/5 rating.
Posted By:
Kurraga
(7/10/2010 11:26:09 AM)
This targeting a Phyrexian Negator: win
Posted By:
wiseguy20
(10/12/2011 9:40:43 PM)
Before lightning bolt was reprinted, this was my favorite 1cc red burn spell. Strafe was another. Lightning bolt has probably made more cards irrelevant in one pass than any other single card in Magic history, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with a better example.
Posted By:
Entropic_Acolyte
(4/27/2010 1:42:21 PM)
Sure, you can compare it to Lightning Bolt: its' a burn spell that (potentially) can deal three damage. You can also compare Ember Shot to Lightning Bolt, but I'm not seeing anyone using that as a redeeming quality for Ember Shot. Both cards compare unfavorably.
I'll take Shock, or any other burn spell that goes where I point it, over this garbage any day.
Posted By:
scumbling1
(5/5/2011 6:30:15 PM)
Repercussion
Furnace of Rath
Fire Servant
Blazing Salvo is a great card. Especially with any combination of these cards on the field. Repercussion would deal 3 to the creature, 3 to the player, or just 5 to the player. So it's a choice of potentially losing a creature and taking 3, or take 5. The other two just double the damage, which gets crazy. 6 to the creature, 10 to the player, or if Repercussion is in play as well, 6 to the creature, 12 to the player, or 10 to the player. All for 
.
Yes, the opposing player gets to choose. Yes, giving them the choice sucks. Just be sure you can use it to your advantage. Always target something they consider critical; mana creatures like Noble Hierarch, or something they might need for a combo. Or something you KNOW is going to hurt you hard-core later.
Posted By:
endersblade
(6/19/2011 7:15:36 PM)
Either it's an extra bolt and card neutral or you get 5 damage for {R}. Target something important and keep bolts in the deck to kill what you failed to kill. If Salvo kills it, then you keep doing your thang, nothing wrong with that. If it doesn't, you make sure to hit it with other burn.
Even though they get to choose this either amounts to Red Control or it amounts to insane mana-per-damage.
Choice cards have their flaws, but this one does well I think.
Posted By:
blurrymadness
(5/28/2012 9:24:46 AM)
I gotta say, I love the idea of using this and opponent chooses to take the hit, then you nail the creature with a Lightning Bolt anyways.
Posted By:
Arachnos
(2/11/2013 10:29:54 PM)
i have a question actually if anyone would be willing to enlighten me: if someone plays this and my board is empty, no creatures to target at all, am i forced to take the lava axe?
Posted By:
FaceClaimer
(4/7/2013 6:33:09 AM)
@FaceClaimer: to answer your question, if there are no targettable creatures on the board than a player cannot cast Blazing Salvo because there is no legal target. You will not take 5. Also, if I cast this while you have no creatures but I do, I would be forced to target my own creature.
Posted By:
yuvalg
(7/17/2013 4:02:04 PM)