• galen150

    would be cool if this saw play but i doubt it. i wonder what the official ruling is for casting 2 instants that both trigger this would be. the trigger wouldn’t fizzle just because the number of counters changes, right?

    say i play this turn 3, then turn 4 i play 2 shocks. i would get 1 trigger that does 1 damage, and another that does 2 damage right?

    • Mike Thomas

      I don’t think so. I’m no judge, but after the first shock resolves and the second ability trigger of the enchantment tries to resolve, it’ll double check the number of counters on the enchantment and the CMC of the second shock. It’ll fail that trigger and it’ll fizzle.

      • It would have to be worded “Whenever you cast a spell, if its converted mana cost is equal to the number of doom counters on Imminent Doom, …” for it to work as you think.

      • Absinthman

        If you cast the second shock in response to the first trigger, it will cause another trigger to happen. And as Shadow921 mentioned, triggered abilities check whether condition is true or false twice only if they have “intervening if clauses”. Which this one does not. The wording would need to be: “Whenever you cast a spell, if its converted mana cost is equal to the number of doom counters…….”

    • Matthhou

      That’s what I’m reading too.

    • It does work the way you want, since there is no intervening if clause, it only checks when you cast the spells are cast.

    • FNN

      It says only equal, so I guess you get the 1 damage with the first shock only

      • galen150

        if you cast the other at instant speed before the first trigger resolves then it would fulfill the equal part

  • NC

    Doom doom doom doom doom, doom doom do DOOM, DOOOM doom do-doom, DOOM do-doom doom doooom, doom doom dooom, do-do-DOOOM!

    • Chaospyke

      Plz stop singing

    • Random Guy

      Look out, he’s animation cancelling his ultimate!

  • TogetherAlone

    Now is this worth it? IN a rakdos deck in standard you could shock or fatal push, then abrade,grasp or cut, at 3 you have quite a few options but unlicensed disintegration comes to mind to dome your opponent for 6 damage and a creature. actually seems kind of good in that you don’t need it in play to make to make it good since you are going to run all those spells anyway for removal.
    Win condition for Rakdos control?

  • jaya

    Looks bad to me, another case of cool art, bad card design a problem red faces since 1994. Seems like wizards favor blue over red since the beginning of times.
    Honestly theres not much to say, the cards are self explanatory.

    Hey at least the art, the art is good.

  • Nanya

    Could’ve been good if it worked more like “every time you cast a spell with a higher CMC than Doom Counters, deal damage to opponent or creature equal to the amount of Doom Counters on this card, then put another Doom Counter on this card.”

  • Alexandre Donnart

    So, with this ruling, you can play 4 Bolts in a row and deal 4. Funny, but not even close to As Foretold. Maybe together in UR ?

    Worth noting, you can target creatures.

    • Random Guy

      Why as foretold? That’s not a very strong or similar card.

      • Alexandre Donnart

        They don’t do the same thing but the comparison is obvious : 3 mana enchantments, with special counters, scaling up, related to playing spells.

        • Random Guy

          So you’re partially saying turn 3 as foretold turn 4 this? Seems kinda interesting.

  • galen150

    this could be a new dynavolt tower, or it could be worthless.

    • Happy The Cat

      inb4 Eye of Doom jumps $2 because some crazy combo breaks this so hard everyone has to main Eye of Doom to counter it.

  • Shagoth

    Why would Wizards put Bolas looking awesome like that on any card that doesn’t imply grandeur? This card is garbage. The mana curve makes this wonky, and you can’t even build around this to make it function, and when it does function, it’s a worse guttersnipe generally. I’d rather pay seven for Sphinxbone Wand. This is so meekly in effect, this should have the or greater clause, otherwise this is impossible to play and is absolutely terrible.

    • TheAweDude

      Problem is that this triggers off of all spells, not just instants and sorceries.
      Also it costs 3 mana as opposed to 7.

      • Shagoth

        I’d rather pay an extra four and it trigger off of only instants and sorceries than to rely on an awkward mana curve. I mean, think about this; It won’t be likely, or worth it, to play a one drop turn four. And then a two drop. And then a three drop turn five. And a four drop turn six. That’s the only way your going to get value out of this thing. I’m a lanky player myself, but this is going into the Dubious Challenge level of specific and terrible.

    • Random Guy

      It works with any spells so long as you follow the wonky curve, deals more damage than Dynavolt, is an enchantment, and is a limited bomb (like dynavolt). Probably good in an aftermath variable cost deck.

      • Shagoth

        Limited bomb? You’d have to get a lucky pool and a lucky draw for this to work after the first two activations.

        • Random Guy

          Not that hard to activate.

          Anything that wins a stalemate is a bomb. Whirlermakers were decent in KD draft for that reason, this is much much better.

          • Shagoth

            Yeah, that wins a stalemate. You need to have very specific cards in your hand, and it’s probably not a stalled out game when you spend mana on specific spells in a specific order opposed to making a 1/1 every turn. How is this not hard to activate? You hope to get the right mana curve after you play this thing! You can’t rely upon it working in your favor with this card when you drive.

          • Random Guy

            You kinda can, in case of emergencies just save your 1-drop and 2-drop.

            Unless you topdeck it I guess. that’s pretty terrible. Hm.

  • Grant Jacobson

    would this combo with solemnity? if you play this turn 3, then on turn 4 go solemnity into 1-drop, turn 5 more 1-drops? seems pretty janky but who knows someone might be able to make it broken

  • Happy The Cat

    I wish it was triggered my a cmc greater than or equal to the mana costs, then dealt damage based on the counters. or if it said may for putting the next counter. if this was more flexible it could have actually been useful.

  • Yikabar

    That art tho

  • Zombie

    I kinda wanna play this as a one-of in a UWR Control deck in Modern just to f*** with someone at FNM at least once.

    “Imminent Doom, go”

    ???? -turn- “pass”

    “Lightning Bolt you, 4 damage”

    “Snapcaster targeting Bolt, you take 2”

    “Bolt you, 3 damage”

    “Electrolyze you, 5 damage”


    ???? -tilted-

    • Happy The Cat

      then tap snap to convoke Stoke the Flames, that’s what? 14+4+4? needs a god hand but shenanigans can happen. and there are more four drops out there.

      • Zombie

        You could always just Resto the Snap and Electrolyze them again, total of 6 damage.

  • Bige Boiy

    i don’t think this is worth playing in any 60-card constructed format, but one might be able to slot it into a grixis build with an izzet or grixis build that can incidentally fulfill the requirement. i don’t think it’s worth warping your deck to make this card work.

  • Grant Jacobson

    according to rulings for Brisela,Voice of Nightmares when casting a spell with X in its casting cost your cmc is the normal CMC plus whatever you spent on X. so although Imminent Doom truly is very janky it isn’t flat out terrible (i.e. if ID has 4 doom counters on it and you cast burn from within paying 1 red and 3 of any color; then you get to deal 3 damage to one creature/planeswalker/player and 4 to either a different creature/planeswalker/player or to the same one)

  • Wow this is really bad.

  • Mors

    So couldn’t you cast this on turn 3, then on turn 4 do something like… Lava Spike, enchantment triggers, respond do it with Bolt, respond to the next trigger with Bolt? 9 damage in spells + 1 + 2 + 3 for the enchantment triggers?

    Obviously would require a ridiculously stacked hand but that’s a lot of burn for 3 mana.

    Even Lava Spike for 4, then Boros Charm for 6. Lots of burn potential if you’re not out of cards by the time you play it.

  • Will

    Once most decks hit four mana on the curve after turn three they really do not have time to back-track (you can play 4 cards for 1 mana, 2 cards for 2 mana, or
    1 card for 3 mana and have a unused mana (lost potential). In total, this card effectively resets your play curve from 4 to 1 again. Furthermore, you lose cards from your hand as you play, thus another hindrance.This would be a great card at 1mana (broken if we actually had burn), and MAYBE usable at two mana, but three mana is the breaking point.