Multiverse: Cast into the Fire

Mechanics | Story | Skeleton

Mockup
Plain

CardName: Cast into the Fire Cost: 2RR Type: Sorcery Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Destroy target artifact, creature, or land unless its controller has Cast into the Fire deal 6 damage to them. Flavour Text: The jewel burned the hand of Maedhros in pain unbearable; and being in anguish and despair he cast himself into a gaping chasm filled with fire, and so ended. Set/Rarity: Silmarillion: The Love of Lúthien Common

Cast into the Fire

Sorcery

Destroy target artifact, creature, or land unless its controller has Cast into the Fire deal 6 damage to them.

The jewel burned the hand of Maedhros in pain unbearable; and being in anguish and despair he cast himself into a gaping chasm filled with fire, and so ended.

Illus. Jenny Dolfen

Updated on 19 Nov 2017 by Tahazzar

Code: CR07

Active?: true

History: [-]

2017-07-05 09:11:59: Tahazzar created the card Cast into the Fire

2017-07-05 15:27:54: Tahazzar edited Cast into the Fire

2017-11-17 17:19:34: Tahazzar edited Cast into the Fire:

was {3} {r} {r} with "Destroy target artifact or land. ~ deals 4 damage to its controller." Added "the" into the name.

2017-11-17 17:21:36: Tahazzar edited Cast into the Fire:

{3} {r} -> {2} {r} {r} . Aftershock anyone?

by Mal:

Seems a bit unreliable. It's unlikely to ever hit what you want to hit in a control deck, and I can't really see myself using the land mode too often unless I'm in a dedicated LD deck.

I think the main issue with this is how unflexible the punisher clause makes it. "Destroy target artifact or land" is pretty Demolish-tier, but adding "creature" to it makes it insanely flexible at {2} {r} {r} , but still reasonably costed (if you're looking to flex "destroy target creature" in red, of course). However, the punisher clause completely negates all flexibility granted in running this spell by making it very unlikely that this spell is going to do what it wants to do when you need it. You could say that's skill-testing, but it just makes me not want to run this in favor of a smaller/narrower removal that has 100% chance of doing what it does when I cast it. It might feel a lot better at {1} {r} {r} for 5 damage? But maybe not at common. I can't see myself wanting multiples.

by Vitenka:

Well, six damage is a lot. I wonder how often you'll be stuck going "What can I threaten convincingly enough to get them to be burnt by this?"?

by Tahazzar:

IMO these kind of effects get the better the more you have them since it becomes more and more dangerous to pay the punisher cost.

Anyway, I think the costing here can be quite flexible here indeed, so that I might be able to cost this reasonable to any 1-4 CMC depending on the overall CMCs appearing on other cards at this rarity.

I could even do this theoretically, if it weren't so inelegant:

> Sorcery
> Destroy target artifact, creature, or land unless its controller has ~ deal X plus 3 damage to them.

Add your comments: