@JacksonRex: Why would you shock your Spitemare when you can shock the target directly?
Funny thing is that Lightning Bolt was deemed to be too good in middle of Urza's block.
Posted By:
tavaritz
(9/1/2011 1:51:40 AM)
Lightning Bolt is better. There we go, problem solved :)
Actually, that's not always true, I guess. You might only want to do 2...in that case, Burst Lightning is basically strictly better, barring Mindslavers, Sen Triplets, or the like.
Posted By:
izzet_guild_mage
(2/23/2010 2:45:51 PM)
Except Lava Spike can't hit creatures, which is what most decks will try to use their burn spells for, unless you're just trying to finish your opponent off.
Posted By:
ratchet1215
(8/27/2009 9:45:08 AM)
doing 2 sometimes is better - for exaple, blasing a spitemare
Posted By:
JacksonRex
(8/27/2010 3:24:37 PM)
Flavor text: Lightning BOLT tethers for 5 damage for 2 cmc, straight to the face! So, that's 8 cmc for a total of 20 damage. Nice. How many people can say theyve won a game on 8 mana? Not I.
Posted By:
Mike-C
(11/22/2011 5:40:06 AM)
This is a great card, just an obsolete one.
Posted By:
SleetFox
(2/25/2010 12:42:47 PM)
Lava Spike is better
Posted By:
N84M09
(8/4/2009 11:40:01 PM)
This was the beginning of the ten or so years that Lightning Bolt was out of print, or what I call the Dark Ages. Completely coincidentally, those were also the ten years that I stopped playing Magic.
I understand that R&D may decide some spells are too powerful, but they should be more creative than to simply make a strictly weaker version with the exact same cost. Incinerate was a good alternative to the bolt, even though few would argue that bolt wasn't still better. They could've replaced the bolt with something like Burst Lightning or even Forked Bolt (though the latter should have been an instant).
Posted By:
achilleselbow
(7/21/2010 6:36:50 PM)