• Dr. Burn Crow

    Your burn spells just got wither. Sorry, Gideon. Welcome to F-Town.

    • Guest

      Won’t work, Gideon prevents all damage dealt to him as long as he’s a creature, even if it’s a replacement effect.

      • Dr. Burn Crow

        Not with THAT attitude!

    • This doesn’t change how burn interacts with any Gideon.

      • Dr. Burn Crow

        I realized this about an hour after I posted this. Me not so smert somtimz.

    • Zombie

      Gideon doesn’t care. The spell has to actually be able to do damage first before the replacement effect replaces the damage with equivalent -1/-1 counters.

      If something is preventing the damage, the spell would deal 0 damage and then it instead puts 0 -1/-1 counters on the target.

      • Dr. Burn Crow

        Drats, foiled by rules!!

        • Insight66

          We’ll get ’em next time

          • Dr. Burn Crow

            Thanks, Price.

  • Kitnz

    This has the potential to impact every format. Yuge.

    • Dr. Burn Crow

      How is this not mythic??

      • Zombie

        Because that’s not how rarity design works? And burn spells are absolute garbage in Standard. And Eternal formats don’t care about rarity. And the list could go on.

        • Dr. Burn Crow

          Please do

          • Zombie

            Doesn’t hit mythic flavor, doesn’t provide a limited-warping effect, isn’t a mindless limited bomb like most mythics, doesn’t actually do anything serious with > 1 copies in play, so it doesn’t need to be rarity restricted for balance reasons. Rarity isn’t for constructed, it’s for limited balance.

            More copies = more. -1/-1 triggers, so you’re going to have to be a very narrow deck with a perfect pool to abuse that.

            If this was mythic it would just be the next Lotus Cobra, as in it shouldn’t be mythic.

            This isn’t a mythic for the same reason Fatal Push isn’t a rare. Cards designed with Constructed specifically in mind usually aren’t that great in limited, unless they’re just generally strong, where this is strong but narrow in application.

            How’s that?

          • Dr. Burn Crow

            Pretty good explanation. +2.

    • Zombie

      Ehhh. Modern Burn definitely. Dunno if Legacy cares. Don’t know if Standard actually has a relevant burn deck that can abuse this.

      EDH decks might be able to use it as well…aaaaand…. that’s about it.

      It turns Grim Lavamancers into -4/-4 Tarmogoyf Snipers, though, so that’s pretty neat.

      • Robby

        This card will CREATE a relevant burn deck.
        If you need me, I’ll be trying to force that archetype online.

        • Zombie

          That’s not how that works. This is s narrow support card. Burn has to exist for this to matter, you can’t just throw a bunch of garbage damage spells together, wrap it up in a Soul-Scar bow, and call it a deck.

          If a Burn deck happens, this will slot into for sure. But this can’t create the deck.

  • KrakenHunter

    Get in my Modern Burn deck ASAP

  • typhuzuzu13

    Izzet burgro? Grixis midrange?

    • Typhuzuzu13

      Or Jund. Snakes for days!

  • Edward

    This is just disgusting. It takes burn to the next level and Prowess is just extra value. The fact that this is 1 mana and a rare is outrageous

    • Erik López Barcelar

      Prowess and that extra toughness are there just to make some mad cash.

      • Edward

        Prowess is just one of those mechanics that doesn’t seem too good until you play with it. You get extra value off each noncreature spell and the creature has the potential to get enormous if you build around it. Gaining 20 life with a Seeker Of The Way because of Temur Battle Rage just feels great not to mention the damage your opponent is taking

        • Erik López Barcelar

          Yeah, prowess is a great mechanic but if you ask me I think this would still be quite an expensive card without prowess, an if you want to play a first drop with prowess Swiftspear is still better. Ppl who plays this card will probably be playing it bc it gives a unique effect. That makes it already expensive, so adding prowess to this card is more a buff to its price rather than its usefulness imo.

  • Serj

    OI BOI

  • Dogmatic Hermit

    Love it. I need a dozen playsets.

    • Zombie

      Sorry I already bought them all.

      • MTG fan

        Sorry, but you aren’t the richest zombie out there.

        • Zombie

          My black bordered Burning Oath deck says otherwise.

  • Jordan

    now this is interesting.

  • Edward

    This card with Satyr Firedancer is just degenerate. This thing is the most Modern playable card in the set so far and this will see Standard and Commander play for sure.

    • Erik López Barcelar

      I thought the same about Satyr. Burn your enemy + deal permanent damage to their creatures. Awesome

  • Shawn Michael Diaz

    Hell yeah

  • Daniel Kaine Allen

    This plus bonfire of the damned while you have nest of scarabs in play. All of your opponents creatures wither away and your army increases tenfold.

  • Murilo Mazza

    Kozilek’s Return, 2 -1/-1 counters to all opponent’s creatures? Nice

    • Marcelo Ortega Coimbra Martins

      And pyroclasm too

      • Phil Pham

        Just a pyroclasm to your creatures. The -1/-1 is a replacement for theirs.

    • Jordan

      Radiant flames for 3. Get a bunch of scarabs from Nest

  • Tolle

    Now. THIS is why I wanted that golgari legend to be jund.

    • Tolle

      Oh well. Guess I’ll just have fun with a lightmine field instead.

  • Alex Brown

    Well at least it doesn’t have haste…

    • NothingSpecial

      Swiftspear was good enough, I think Wizards is smart enough to not print Monastery Upsidespear

  • Pc

    Does it mean, when two of them are lying on the battlefield, i can put twice that many -1/-1 counters??

    • Jordan

      Yes.

      • Daniel Kaine Allen

        No. Its a replacement effect. Can’t happen twice.

        • Jordan

          So each one wouldn’t trigger? It only triggers once?

          • Robby

            Technically, it doesn’t ‘trigger’ because it’s not a triggered ability.
            What happens here is that when damage is about to take place, both of these replacement options present themselves, and you must choose one; the other is ignored. Since these are the same ability, it effectively doesn’t matter which one you choose.

          • Jordan

            Cool, that’s good to know then :) Thanks for that.

            So in essence the card shock would lose it’s two damage to a creature and instead say “Put two -1/-1 counters on a target creature”, right?

          • Daniel Kaine Allen

            Once the first one resolves, a second trigger will no longer have a damage target, and will cancel. This is different from a replacement effect such as doubling season where once the first doibling season resolves, a second trigger will still have counters or tokens to target.

    • Nadorou

      I don’t think so. It’s a replacement effect.

      • DJPad

        Exactly, kind of like how you can’t dredge twice off one draw.

    • Happy The Cat

      no, since it is a replacement effect both would trigger at the same time, you would then choose which order you want them to resolve in, then the first triggers turning the damage to creatures into -1/-1 counters, then the second one fizzles since the damage is no longer… well, damage.

  • Erik López Barcelar

    This could be quite a thing in burn decks and even mono red decks. It gives them a way to face decks that run bigger creatures (generally those with toughness 4 or greater) and even kill indestructible creatures. I know most people doesnt like Hazoret, but imo even if she isnt that good, her + this guy suggest that wotc is trying to buff burn decks.

    • Random Guy

      Sideboard maybe? But idk, it doesn’t seem all that strong; do you really WANT to burn a creature without killing it? Decent with “damage to all” I guess.

      • Happy The Cat

        it could help with shadow and tron decks that normally are a bit too big for burn to kill in one turn, also they probably made this since there are going to be five really big indestructible creatures in limited and every color but red has a way to deal with them.

        • Zombie

          ????

          Burn is one of Death’s Shadow’s worst possible matchups. “Oh, how nice, you did half of my work for me. Bolt, Lava Spike, good game”.

          Burn is the entire reason Death’s Shadow warped into a Zoo-esque deck in the first place, because it couldn’t just rely on a suicide strategy in a format where Burn is a popular Tier 1.5 competitive deck that consistently Top 8’s big tournaments.

          • Happy The Cat

            what I mean is that non burn decks can now pick up a much bigger burn suite than they normally would simply due to it being more reliable. cards like bolt and helix are much more valuable in the late game simply due to becoming -3/-3 instead of damage. any mirrors now get broken by the ping you have. what this does is it turn burn into real removal. which red never really had before.

      • Yes you do, in modern burn has a hard time killing things like goyf without it killing their own creature too. This lets a bolt shrink goyf while keeping your threat alive.

        • Zombie

          Burn doesn’t have a hard time killing Goyf in the slightest.

          The problem isn’t being able to kill Goyf, the problem is forcing yourself to 2-for-1 yourself every time you want to do it by bolting and trading a creature away.

          Now, this just outright kills a 4/5 or smaller Goyf that it blocks post-Bolt, and stonewalls a 5/6 Goyf that gets reduced to 2/3.

          This doesn’t making killing Goyf any easier, it just lowers our cost of doing so dramatically.

      • Zombie

        Burn decks in Modern are already dropping Wild Nacatl. This could just slot in instead in a 19 land build that doesn’t need as many Green sources as a result.

        4x Goblin Guide
        4x Monastery Swiftspear
        4x Soul-Scar Mage
        4x Eidolon of the Great Revel
        2x Grim Lavamancer

        New basic creature package for Modern Burn.

        Also helps Burn deal with previously garbage matchups. Burn spells can now help deal with some large Tron threats, Tarmogoyf, indestructible creatures, Kitchen Finks, etc.

        This answers a heap of problems that Burn currently has, and it’s likely going to bump Burn back up into Tier 1 from 1.5.

        • Kyle Kinnear

          This cards seems more like a 2 of then a 4 of. You don’t want too many, as they’ll slow down the clock significantly.

          • Zombie

            Slowing down the clock doesn’t matter when you’re stopping your opponent from killing you.

            This allows Burn to win bad matchups it previously could not while only slightly suffering in pace, considering most Burn decks are dropping Nacatl for Skullcracks or extra Lightning Helixes now.

            There’s no reason to play only 2 of these. Three is the absolute minimum.

            3 is the lowest number of a card you include that you absolutely want to see in the most games possible. You play 4 of a card, for instance, when you want the best chance of having that card in your opening hand.

            Burn runs many 4 ofs because of its principle of redundancy both game to game and within each game itself.

            But replacing the 4 Nacatls is the simplest answer here.

            And with Prowess, this has power spikes equally as large as Monastery Swiftspear when combined with the likes of Atarka’s Command.

          • Murilo Mazza

            Zombie: I understand your point, but I think your math is wrong. If you add that much with tiny creatures and you don’t draw spells, your chances of being dead are higher. A couple is more than enough IMO, 4 would be too much I guess, and the point is not killing creatures all the time. Reminding you, spikes, atarka’s command and boros charm don’t target creatures, not too much in the current naya burn list to target creatures.

          • Zombie

            Lightning Bolt, Lightning Helix, Searing Blaze, Rift Bolt, Grim Lavamancer.

            That’s 15-18 cards that work with Soul-Scar mage that are standard in every single Burn list, not counting sideboards.

            More spells work with Soul-Scar mage than don’t. There’s only ever about 12 spells that can only hit players, depending on what you’re running.

  • Jordan

    Really good with all those X damage to a creature, Y damage to a player burn spells.

  • Zombie

    Oh hey, there’s my one 4x pre order from the entire set, just like with Fatal Push.

    Burn in modern can now get away with 0 nacatl builds that don’t sacrifice Nacatl’s board threat, and this a buff to Grim Lavamancer.

    This is PuShEd.

    Also this lets you beat Goyf with Bolt instead of 2-for-1’ing yourself. This is a potentially massive release for Burn in Modern.

    • Jordan

      Pre-ordered 12 at $1.49 each. Figured it was a small investment and the payoff could be good.

      • Zombie

        idk if it’s worth

        If it puts up Eidolon level increases itll pay off well, but if it stays around Swiftspear level then offloading them will be more trouble than its worth

  • Ryū

    Awesome. Can now build a funeral pyre out of an indestructible army.

  • Happy The Cat

    mmmm… non combat damage is wither… finally a good red card…
    too bad the only burn in this set so far is kinda mediocre, but this is at least going to modern side boards, if not further.
    also the jund ’em deck is back it seems

  • Ants Johnson

    Monastery Slowspear.

  • MTG fan

    This has prowess and an amazing replacement effect, and is a 1/2 for one red. Tremendous value!

  • laa

    insane card… deals with Tarmogoyf and finks (does not return)

    Insane card with bolts..

  • laa

    turns off persist… Bolt finks and dies with 1-1 counters on it.

    • Reyos Blackwood

      Turns back on undying, potentially

      • Robby

        Actually, some people are currently looking at Alligator of the Crossing in Mono-G Modern Stompy for that very reason. Young Wolf and/or Strangleroot Geist gain some serious added survivability, albeit one that causes a loss in power, but the creatures are still more lively nonetheless.

  • lalona

    Turn 3 Scarab nest
    turn 4 Soul-Scar Mage into Kozilek’s Return and make a bunch of tokens, killing or shrinking opponent creatures

  • Nanya

    Does this get around protection from red for non-targeting creature burn?

    • Brian Schmidt

      I believe not. It’s all about the color of the card not whether it does damage or not. HOWEVER!!! This DOES get past Indestructible!!

    • No.

      • Nanya

        Thank you.

    • Zombie

      No, the spell/ability has to actually be able to deal damage first. If it can’t deal damage, the replacement effect means nothing.

      • Nanya

        Just wanted to make sure.

  • Anonim

    So technically shock can kill gideon when he is a creature ?

    • Zombie

      No. It’s a replacement effect.

      Instead of dealing damage, it puts that many -1/-1 counters on it. INSTEAD, not in addition to damage.

      Shock just puts -2/-2 on Gideon.

      • Dave

        Not even that unfortunately, since damage on Gideon is prevented by his ability. :(

        • Anonim

          ah yes you are right, I though he is only indestructible

        • Pandancules

          it still comes down to replacement effects. The controller of the gideon chooses which order to apply the two replacement effects in.

  • Daniel Behan

    So basically it gives your spells wither

  • Deadly Berry

    Oh look, a good reason to use the gods: They can now soak -1/-1 counters! Thank you Wizards for making the gods useful. Leaving aside the sarcasm, this card is pretty good for one R.

  • Jordan

    Shock allows this small guy to kill a 4/4 in combat

    • Necrachilles

      Nah, it’s counters instead of damage. Can be used to kill re-generators and indestructibles though

      • Jordan

        Right. You declare blockers and block with this guy. You then shock their 4/4 which puts two -1/-1 counters on their creature and triggers this guys Prowess, making him 2/3. Your 2/3 beats their 2/2. Hence with a shock, you kill their 4/4 with a 1/2. The combat math and head games are going to be amazing with this guy.

        • Necrachilles

          That’s my bad. Didn’t read the combat part. Its gonna be awesome though, better than some people think it will be

      • Yuan Ramirez

        No, he’s right. You attack with this guy, opp blocks with 4/4, you shock 4/4, prowess kicks in – this guy becomes a 2/3 until eot, shock downsizes the 4/4 to a 2/2, profit.

  • Seraph

    YOU get wither and YOU get wither and YOU get wither!

    • NothingSpecial

      But it more commonly affects spells than creatures, so it’s almost but not quite the complement of wither :P

  • Gord

    This is scary good – a card that will have more impact on older formats than standard. However, this and walking ballista will produce a ton of counters if those can be abused (I can think of a few good ways).

  • Insight66
    • Shagoth

      OTP

  • Finally, a card that might be worth playing in non-rotating formats.

  • NotTrump

    Looks like red or red/black burn is going to be a thing, wow.

  • Calvin

    I bet my friends that I could play RDW in standard for 5 years straight, looks like this will be the first time in a while I will do good.

  • Reyos Blackwood

    Honestly, there is a keyword, why not use it?

    • TheAweDude

      The same reason that Emissary of the Sleepless didn’t use the keyword Morbid.

    • Transgendent

      Wither is more of a phyrexian flavored keyword. Same with why some cards have landfall, but not the keyword landfall, since landfall is more of a zendikar flavored keyword

      • Reyos Blackwood

        No landfall is not a keyword, same with metalcraft, keywords don’t need more text, landfall is a a trigger for an ability but not an ability itself, wither, deathtouch, trample, these are keywords.

        • eltratzo

          landfall is not even a trigger for an ability. it is an ability word. it has no rulesmeaning by itself and cannot be referenced in rulestext. it is purely there for flavour reasons and to assist less experienced players in grouping similar abilities (also: gatherer searches ^^).

      • eltratzo

        wither is not at all phyrexian. it is an ability exclusively used on the plane of shadowmoor, mainly by black aligned tribes.

        the phyrexian keyword is infect.

    • Edward

      Well it would have to be worded awkwardly since it would only be damage dealt to your opponents creatures not to mention Wither isn’t evergreen so using it on 1 card would just feel wrong.

      • Reyos Blackwood

        Wither is only damage to your opponent’s creatures, so I still don’t get that part of your argument. We’re not talking infect here.

        • Edward

          Wither does not specify it has to be to your opponents creatures. It just says damage the source deals to creatures is is turned to -1/-1 counters instead. Also Wither was originally intended for the set but they later decided to not have it in the set. That might be the main reason this doesn’t use the term Wither

          • Reyos Blackwood

            That explains it actually, the opponent requirement.

          • eltratzo

            exept that you can just write that in front of wither. if the card only makes noncombat damage dealt to creatures of an opponent be treated as if its source had wither there should be no problems.

            however wizards only puts nonevergreen mechanics into sets where they are actually one of the featured mechanics. this sometimes looses a bit of backwards compatibility (not in this case though as afaik nothing specifically plays of wither. just off of placing -1/-1 counters) but also doesn’t cause needless confusion to people who might not have played long enough to know that mechanic from when it last appeared.

            magic already has an absurdly large specialized vocabulary. (player shorthands and nicknames only make that worse). if wizards wants to grab new players they do have to take care that the amount of extra stuff you have to learn when starting out is as small as possible, so they tend to err on the side of less complex over more fringe interactions.

          • Reyos Blackwood

            Though the way I read this it would mess with some less fringe usage like pinging/fighting with deathtouch, since this replaces the damage with -1/-1 and wither deals damage in the form of -1/-1, the counters would go on, but no actual damage was dealt, it was replaced. And that’s just an issue with this wording off the top of my head.

          • eltratzo

            yeah there is some very fringe difference. This reply of mine however specifically concerned the “only opponents” part. and I stand by my point it COULD have been worded with wither while leaving its functionalitiy nearly completely intact(it would have been very slightly stronger in fact since this one as you pointed out doesn’t work with deathtouch while wither does).

            and given that we know that wither was considered here but didn’t make it into thhe set I think it likely that this was at some point written with wither and then changed when wither left the set.

          • eltratzo

            you could have gotten around that though “all noncombat damage damage that sources you control deal to creatures an opponent controls is dealt as though the source had wither” (i.e. a mashup of this and everlasting torment)
            in fact this might have originaly have been worded with wither and when they decided to pull out the keyword they changed the card because while they might not have wanted the effects of wither (wither, especially at common, means -1/-1 counters are everywhere which limits what payoffs for -1/-1-counters you can put in the set) this card seemed well like fun so they kept it.

        • Daniel Kaine Allen

          Basically nobody sees your point because this isn’t wither, so they can’t just call it wither.

          • Necrachilles

            Next this guy is going to tell me that spirit link is lifelink and that you can target planeswalkers with Lightning bolt

          • Trevor Terry

            @Necrachilles

            While you can’t “Target” the Planeswalker with Lightning Bolt, you can still damage a Planeswalker with Lightning Bolt.

            “306.8. If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent
            may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead.”

          • Necrachilles

            Yeah I know, that was the point.

        • Brian Knarr

          This only applies to noncombat damage. Wither would have implied all damage done by any source.

    • Jonny karaoke

      It’s noncombat damage, also it’s from all sources that are noncombat damage, which couldn’t be worded with wither anywah

      • Dave

        Everlasting Torment does it for all damage, Could’ve been worded but ofc Wizards never uses keywords outside their respective sets. Why? Beats me. Would love more coherence in that aspect.

    • Happy The Cat

      it’s simply due to them not wanting to bring back a keyword for one card in a standard set, if this was in a commander box it might have been wither.

  • Vizzerdrix

    its a great card but i dont think it is at a point of being that great. swiftspear was great bc it had haste, pseudo wither isnt bad but it requires a slight build around , ie you want to hit creatures with damage where red really excells at just hitting a player instead, and swiftspear is just good all around especially just casting it to swing right away and cast a couple spells, haste is irrelevant though after you untap with it but itll end up doing less than swiftspear would

    • Jordan

      This is a defensive card, not offensive. Totally different things.

    • This card is played in the same deck as swiftspear in modern. Burn has a hard time not 2 for 1ing themselves trying to kill goyf. There isn’t a build around, it slots right into the deck.

  • Lord Gonti Of The Orzov Networ

    Jund deck with harparta

    • Tom James

      Yaaaaaaaasssss. Hapatra makes channeler initiate even better, and then soul-scar makes any burn wither, coupled with his prowess makes him a machine, and he goes well with hapatra. Plus there are great midrange cards like Glorybringer, and maybe champion of rhonas, and maybe even archfiend of ifnir if the colors get more discard support, because he seems solid on his own and disgusting with hapatra. Plus walking ballista with soul scar mage is absolutely disgusting, especially with hapatra out. I imagine you’d run traverse the ulvenwald in a deck like this, maybe have a little delirium. Could be sweet

      • Jeremy Scott

        SO, a decklist like this?
        Land (24)
        4x Blooming Marsh
        4x Canyon Slough
        1x Evolving Wilds
        3x Forest
        4x Game Trail
        2x Mountain
        4x Sheltered Thicket
        2x Swamp
        Creature (19)
        4x Archfiend of Ifnir
        4x Channeler Initiate
        4x Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons
        4x Soul-Scar Mage
        3x Walking Ballista
        Planeswalker (3)
        3x Chandra, Torch of Defiance
        Instant (10)
        4x Fiery Temper
        2x Lightning Axe
        4x Shock
        Artifact (4)
        1x Ghirapur Orrery
        3x Key to the City

        • Tom James

          Something like this would be pretty sweet, but you could cut orrery, one key and some of the later drops for pushes and unlicensed disintegration

  • Gord

    If you have this in play and your looking at attacking into a 4/4, you magma spray the 4/4 – making it a 2/2 then attack with your 2/3. This gives red some serious racing power

  • Giby86 .

    I love how the art is from Steve Argyle. They know. They’re trolling us.

    • Jordan

      care to explain?

      • TheGreenOne

        It’s basicly weaker Monastery Swiftspear.

        • Jordan

          Again, this is a defensive creature, not offensive.

          • Giby86 .

            Steve Argyle did the art for the Swiftspear. ^^

          • eltratzo

            so then this is Pyramid slowspear? ^^

          • Shaun Merr

            lmao this is gold

  • Shagoth

    Hey, burn can deal with tarmogoyf sufficiently now!
    Also, flashier but worse Swiftspear, still ridiculous, still basing designs off of making other cards sort of better, sort of worse.

  • Typhuzuzu13

    THis combined with the golgarigirl from this set?

    • ymmij X

      Or just the insect spawner

  • Dragoncastermaster

    So a 1/2 with prowess that gives all burn spells wither this seems awesome

  • Richard Carlucci

    People do realize this allows you to deal with indestructable creatures with red burn spells right? Edit: I guess with Gideonot does not work? Can a judge come on here and explain hoe the indestructible works? Because I know with trample, if you dealt enough for lethal the rest tramples over. So I am not sure how this works., still amazing regardless.

    • NotTrump

      Gideon can still be destroyed through combat damage, instead of doing damage it removes loyalty counters. Damage still accumulates on indestructible creatures, so yeah, you can take out indestructible creatures. It still wouldn’t be worth it to take out Gideon if he has 5 or less loyalty counters though, as the -1 counters are removed at the end of turn and it wouldn’t remove loyalty counters.

      • ymmij X

        Though of your looking to kill giddeon there was an aftermath printed that says damage cannot be prevented. This allows you to bypass gids shield and smack his counters off

      • Calvin

        but his turn in to a creature ability clearly says, “prevent all damage done to him this turn

      • -1/-1 counters aren’t removed at end of turn.

    • Happy The Cat

      well, all the Gideons prevent the damage done to them, so while in theory you could use burn to kill, like say the gods, for example, but the damage dealt to gideon is prevented so he gets no -1/-1 counters

  • Jordan

    Does damage prevention prevent the counters if it’s a replacement effect?

    • ymmij X

      Yep