if you play red and black then might as well play with Wrecking Ball. only problem is that u lose out on the artifact destruction. but theres probably something out there to make up for it. besides more often than not artifact destruction is sideboard material.
Posted By:
LeMaK
(12/12/2009 9:56:17 AM)
Dear Players:
Just to rub it in---no, we are not giving Red enchantment removal.
They get 'destroy target creature' even sometimes, when we're feeling really nice.
But no enchantment removal.
Signed,
Wizards.
Posted By:
DarthParallax
(3/2/2012 9:26:18 AM)
The versatility doesn't make up for the recoil or mana cost.
Posted By:
Sironos
(5/19/2010 11:08:57 AM)
Why is everyone whining about red not getting enchantment removal? Red has NEVER been able to remove enchantments- and never will! It's one of the weaknesses of the color, plain and simple. Green can't kill creatures, black can't get rid of artifacts or enchantments, blue can't destroy permanents at all and white's removal either must be mass (getting rid of its stuff, too) or has some condition attached to it (Oblivion Ring can be removed, returning the target, Path to Exile gives your opponent a land, etc.) And hence, red's weakness is that it can't get rid of enchantments.
I like this card, though. Red isn't known for its versatility, so this is useful.
Posted By:
Lord_Ascapelion
(11/28/2012 9:25:27 AM)
Fantastic card. Sadly, not really in Red's color pie (but according to Mark Rosewater, neither is Chaos Warp, so there's always a chance more spells like this will slip through the cracks and see print) - just consider Avatar of Discord, which hits the same permanents but at the cost that it's random.
@Lord_Ascapalion: Green can destroy creatures through Instant deathtouch cards, provoke, and fight; Blue can get permanents through tapping them down, bouncing them, and stealing them (plus oddities like Reweave); the conditional effects on White removal are hardly that conditional (Oblivion Ring, for instance, is difficult for a Red mage to take care of). Red has a few answers to enchantments with random effects like Avatar of Discord and temporary stealing effects like Zealous Con***s, but aside from comparing it to Black, its weakness in enchantments is much worse than the weakn... (see all)
Posted By:
sarroth
(12/12/2012 12:00:58 PM)
This is a fantastic card, but newer players might see it and think "it Lightning Bolts ME?!" and dismiss it. Red does not have many ways of dealing with creatures with 5 or more toughness for 4 mana, and at the time of its printing, this was an easy supplement to fearsome land destruction decks boasting Wasteland, Stone Rain, Flowstone Flood, Rain of Tears, pitching in as either threat removal or more land destruction. Do not sleep on this kind of versatility.
Posted By:
Equinox523
(6/18/2013 9:53:27 AM)
Destroy target creature?!
Whoa. 3.5/5+ easy; as red doesn't get anything like this. Additionally, this can go in a Land Destruction deck; while being able to hit the fat that could land between your disruption. Seems good.
Posted By:
blurrymadness
(2/11/2014 9:52:11 AM)
I'm having a problem. My friend casted Aftershock to destroy one of my creatures. I countered it using the card Meddle (redirect a single target spell if it's targeting a creature to a creature of your choice) to redirect it to one of his creatures.
He insists that he shouldn't take the 3 damage that goes along with casting the spell and I insist that he still does since he casted the spell.
My question is...though the spell was countered (redirected), does he still take the 3 damage? Or, for some reason, because I redirected it using Meddle, I somehow absorb the side effect of the card?
Posted By:
Joeout
(3/25/2014 3:02:07 PM)