Multiverse: Crick in the Brick

Mockup
Plain

CardName: Crick in the Brick Cost: R Type: Instant Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Crick in the Brick deals damage to target creature or player equal to the number of cards named Crick in the Brick cast this turn. Flavour Text: "Explosions are a lot like lizards. The more you have, the angrier they get." -Jaroot, Goblin Trashsmith Set/Rarity: New Mirrodin Common

Crick in the Brick

Instant

Crick in the Brick deals damage to target creature or player equal to the number of cards named Crick in the Brick cast this turn.

"Explosions are a lot like lizards. The more you have, the angrier they get."
-Jaroot, Goblin Trashsmith

Updated on 23 Nov 2012 by jmgariepy

Code: CR06

Active?: true

History: [-]

2012-11-23 05:12:24: jmgariepy created the card Crick in the Brick

2012-11-23 05:12:36: jmgariepy edited Crick in the Brick

by jmgariepy:

Hole filling, I found I needed to add a 1-cost direct damage spell. The set has a few 'collect me' style cards, so I figured this would be a fine addition. It compares favorably to Shock, but, man, does it suck when you realize that your third spell is only a Lightning Bolt. I think I'll have to be okay with this not being 'good'. Besides, could you imagine a draft where you snagged seven of these? Cast six in the same turn and win the game. ;)

by SadisticMystic:

You only have to cast 5 in the same turn to win, since you can respond to the previous ones and it doesn't look for the number until resolution.

by Link:

That comma after "player" is unnecessary.

2012-11-23 06:59:09: jmgariepy edited Crick in the Brick

by jmgariepy:

Thanks Link. Corrected.

Huh. I guess you're right Mystic. Well, I certainly don't want to make this a sorcery... and I guess the worst it would do in most match ups is turn into 3 Bolts. If someone gets four online at the same time, more power to them. I guess the card saved itself?

This is a minor barrier to entry problem. I don't think many new players would have come up with that... but I don't think playing this card 'the wrong way' is so bad. When someone points out to them they can play their CitBs in a better way, I assume that will make them happier.

by Vitenka:

Potentially utterly terrifying with stuff that can copy spells.

by Alex:

Not so much, because copies aren't "cast". Reverberate / Twincast and friends just "put a copy onto the stack"; same with Izzet Guildmage etc.

There are some things that let you "cast" copies; most notably Isochron Scepter. Two of these on two Scepters gives you 4 damage a turn.

...Actually, huh, the way this is currently worded, no it doesn't. Because this says "the number of cards named ~ cast this turn". I don't know whether that's deliberate, but it does protect it a bit more from degenerate combos.

by jmgariepy:

Not deliberate, just an accident of wording. I suppose the 'degenerate' way to do it would be "the number of spells", right?

Do we think we can squeeze the degenerate wording in here? Isochron Scepter is nice, but it's already broken with 100+ other cards, so I'm not concerned. I can't think of anything that could really abuse this... all I can come up with is "Works well with Fork (which copies the name. Though that might be a bomb-o.)"

Oh, also, Past in Flames. But that doesn't require copying. And I'm kind of cool with players who spend 10 mana and cast 4 spells to deal 25 damage.

Add your comments: