I like to sometimes see the simplicity of "This thin? Boom." But yeah, probably not a sensible common and sadly the damage nowadays has to come from somewhere. Shortest alternative would be "You" :)
Note: Whenever you create a card that deals damage to something (As opposed to lifeloss), you need to specify a source. On spells, the source is usually the card itself.
So for this it'll be "~ deals 7 damage to target creature."
Another note: Wizards avoids having numbers 7 or greater (or even 6 or greater) on common burn spells, because at around 6 damage or so, the spell basically turns into "destroy target creature". To differentiate black and red removal, they usually have red removal spells occupy damage amounts from 1-5, 6 on occasion, and save the large damage spells for higher rarities.
i didnt know that was a thing LOl!
btw how do you reference existing cards?
yeah probably.i coudl change this, making it similar to Arzan Bishop
Yeah, this is something I could see an Ice Faerie do. You consciously decided against the snow supertype?
I didn't know this was a reprint, but are they both? It's enough to change one of the two.
cool it will be 5 :D I like 5 dmg spells, dont know why :P
I like to sometimes see the simplicity of "This thin? Boom." But yeah, probably not a sensible common and sadly the damage nowadays has to come from somewhere. Shortest alternative would be "You" :)
Note: Whenever you create a card that deals damage to something (As opposed to lifeloss), you need to specify a source. On spells, the source is usually the card itself.
So for this it'll be "~ deals 7 damage to target creature."
Another note: Wizards avoids having numbers 7 or greater (or even 6 or greater) on common burn spells, because at around 6 damage or so, the spell basically turns into "destroy target creature". To differentiate black and red removal, they usually have red removal spells occupy damage amounts from 1-5, 6 on occasion, and save the large damage spells for higher rarities.