For Challenge # 078

OK, back to normal red burn spells. 3 for 2. That's searing spear. Can searing spear be a little bit better? Yes, of course, since lightning bolt was reprinted. In fact, if it gets slightly better in ways other than doing more damage or getting cheaper, it's probably still less good than lightning bolt (which is good because lightning bolt is very very very strong).

There's lots of similar "N damage to creature and X damage to controller" spells, but most of them are conditional. I don't think this exact combination has been printed, despite being one of the most obvious. Probably because the templating is rather ugly: maybe it should always be "three damage to creature and one damage to controller"? Or would 2 and 2 be too good?

2 and 2 is Lunge. (1 and 1 or 3 and 3 are both Searing Blaze.)

I always liked searing blaze, and I'd not found Lunge for comparison. I feel now maybe lunge would be ok at 1R, it's no more board-affecting than shock and no more total damage than flame slash. Or maybe sorcery like Arc Trail.

Yeah, Lunge is probably pretty weak by modern standards.

Come to think of it, a better combination might be more like Arc Trail -- either explicitly two and one, or "3 divided how you choose", but require it to hit a player so it doesn't give you the potential for a two-for-one.

This card's wording is a bit back-and-forthy. You choose between a creature and a player, so you choose a creature, so you don't choose a player, but since you didn't choose the player, now the player gets the damage.

Why not "Choose one - "?