• Jackson Means

    Late game ouchies!!!

  • Gregory Walter

    That’s a killer, right there. 0_o

  • Aurore

    Weather Forecasts call for rain, hail, and a whole lot of smiting from the God-Pharaoh.

  • Writerofthings

    I love it

  • victorseth

    That’s really good.

  • Jude

    Im Chet U-bowdown reminding you!! To bow down! :D

  • Gregory Walter

    Bolas: “Hail to the King, baby.”

  • MTG Deck Guru

    Idk how I really feel about this card. To make it really effective lategame you HAVE to use a lot of mana but I think it would be more effective turn 4 or 5 to cause a slight disruption to turn the game in your favor

    • scotch1337

      its pretty good control for mid game. For a few mana, you forcing the player to choose between life, permanents or hand. Its a big setback anyway you look at it, but it shouldn’t be looked at as a bomb at that point. It should be used as control.

      • Mov

        I think it’s pretty decent vs control – they tap out to cast pull from tomorrow as their last card and you respond by making them discard them all those cards they just drew plus lose 3 life. Or even better you counter their pull then tap out for this ;)

        Best punisher card I’ve seen. Turns out that if you cost the options at a similar badness for the opponent and make the effect repeatable, punisher becomes a lot better.

        • Alexandre Donnart

          The question is, how do you respond to a Pull with this.

          Also, if a Control player has a choice between losing 3 or discarding a card, he will always keep his cards, as long as he’s not dying to the life loss.

          • Mov

            Oh yeah pull is instant isn’t it. Oopsy.

            Yeah but x = 5 is 15 damage. Any less than 3 damage per mana would be bad. I think this hits the sweet spot.

  • Robert FakeLastName

    interesting that it doesn’t allow you to sac lands. you(the opp) may want to by the time this thing is being cast. you(the caster) still have to have x >(#cards in hand+non lands in play) before you can kill the opp.

  • Bige Boiy

    this is nuts for a punisher card. certainly not good enough for normal constructed formats, but I can see this in a mono-black commander deck doing work.

    • chris_m_h

      This will see standard play.

  • Grant Jacobson

    justification for rakdos burn/control? probably not but stranger things have happened

  • Nanya

    …I want.

  • Shagoth

    That’s some [email protected]$$ flavor text, also doing this X times might make this worth it in a black ramp deck, still would rather Exsanguinate.

    • Nanya

      Why not both?

      • Shagoth

        I have drain life, consume spirit, a bunch of other black drain cards, I would have had Death Cloud if I thought about it, and a ton of draw spells in that deck. Maybe I could replace one of them, but this feels kind of on the weak side with the options.

        • Nanya

          You can always test it out, right?

          • Shagoth

            I could.

  • Guest

    I’m liking this “torment” mechanic.

  • Fred Weasley

    This is a pretty good card. From my understanding you can even cast it for x=0 and it still would work once.

    • Pandancules

      It wouldn’t

    • Guest

      “Repeat the following process 0 times.”

      • Jackson Means

        Right so it happens once?

        • Guest

          The wording would have to been switched around, so the effect happens first then it says to repeat it X times. Like this:
          “Each opponent loses 3 life… /Then/ repeat this process X time.”

          • scotch1337

            I don’t think so, “Repeat the following process x times”. “Repeat the following process 1 time(s)”

            To repeat something one time, the action first has to happen at least on time. So I believe this card is a 1+X affect. Clearly though Wizards will have to clarify the ruling of this or it will have a lot of arguments in tournaments.

          • Kal El

            A tournament for noobs maybe. Magic is wordy. Read the card and break it down. It doesn’t say anything about doing it first it says repeat x times where x is what you pay into it. So if you pay 0 you just paid 2 mana to throw this in your graveyard.

          • Dave

            Speaking of wordy, repeat means doing something again. I can’t repeat anything that didn’t happen, sooo…

          • Guest

            The wording is “Repeat the FOLLOWING process…” That means the process hasn’t even started yet. For example, if you tell a computer program to complete an action X number of times and you put in 0 for X, the program will run 0 times and end.

          • Dave

            Completing an action and repeating and action are two very different pair of shoes, especially in this case since the word choice of “repeat” could be looked at either way. “Repeat the following process” could mean (and actually does language-wise) “do it once and then again”. We’ll need clarification, that’s for sure.

          • Dave

            I guess, we have confirmation on twitter. You got it right.
            https://twitter. com/MelissaDeTora/status/878283951437078528

            Still, poor wording language-wise. Lots of people will be confused by this.

          • Dave

            … either way, this is poorly worded/formatted.

          • Kal El

            Still doesn’t happen if you don’t pay anything into it.

          • scotch1337

            Calm down.

            No kidding Magic is wordy, that is why they have erratas and rule clarifications. Now look at my example. Pay 3 mana for this card, and the card says Repeat the following process 1 time(s). Does that mean the effect happens twice?


          • Kal El

            Congratulations! You’re still wrong on this card because you don’t do it once if you pay zero into it.

          • scotch1337

            but do you do it twice if you pay for it once?

        • eltratzo

          nope. even the first iteration is already a “repetition” in the sense of the card. if it wanted to do as you and fred suggest it would be:
          “yadda yadda discard lavaspike sac. then repeat that process X times”

          that variant is in various forms used on multiple cards that already exist. the closest to this would be trade secrets I guess. there the number is determined by target opp instead of manacost but the idea is paralell to this. and there the first iteration stands seperately and the the repetition clause is written.

        • Kal El

          No it doesn’t.. it says x before repeat.

  • jaya

    Looks pretty good actually, and nice art. A better Exsanguinate IMO.

  • Happy The Cat

    so these cut off a finger effects have been kind of cute, until you get to this one. with enough mana this is a huge hand and board wipe, I dont see many decks wanting this but stuff like Black Devotion that can make massive amounts of mana on the spot will be able to just massacre every player at once.

    • DarthinvaderIX

      Standard board wipes and hand hate could use this as a finisher as a big multibolt

  • Deadly Berry

    You can spend any color of mana for X, which is pretty nice. I love how EDH friendly this block is.

    • Hedronal

      That’s a nice thing, but I think the real Commander value is those two glorious words “Each opponent”

      • Daniel Kaine Allen

        Agreed, in multiplayer in general thos will be absolutely crippling to the opposition.

  • Scott Fridinger

    Such a good card, I’m in.

  • Kaiser

    The flavor text, so badass

  • galen150

    This plus neheb seems pretty strong. Either as the way to cause life lose for the mana, or as a card to dump all that extra mana into

  • Chaospyke

    A delightful win con and one sided field wipe.
    I love it for control.

    • galen150

      i wouldnt really call this a win con. good card and i really like it but it shouldn’t be played as a win con

      • NCY

        Compare to exsanginate: Pump X to 40 in a commander deck and it is a wincon, and basically fits in as a second exsanginate. Think about it. Assume 15 permanents and a full hand (generous), that means you have 40-15-7=18. 18*3=54. Scales well as well: exsanginate for 10 gains you a bunch of life, but doesn’t do much else. This on the other hand makes them lose 30 unless they want to lose a bunch of permanents and/or cards from hand. And also consider that just to get it down to dealing the *same* amount of damage as exsanginate they have to lose 7 permanents/cards.

  • Edwin Marín Castro

    This is so bad, in the best way.

  • Jacob Kodicovic


  • Kaiser

    I still wish for something like Cruel ultimatum in standard for my Grixis casual. But this is my favorite sorcery of the set.

    • Alex

      Do i have great news for you, Aether Revolt already has that covered.

  • Tezzybros

    That art looks familiar…
    just remove that bolas, and make the fireballs red…

  • Eventide

    Fiery hail plague.

  • Zombie

    I believe this means “Do the effect once for BB, repeat the effect X times”.

    It could be ruled to be just “Do this x times”, but the wording is wrong for that.

    The “repeat” implies there’s something to repeat in the first place.

    So under the assumption that you can cast this at face value for a BB for one “process”, repeating it 0 times where x = 0, it seems at the very least Standard playable.

    Without a doubt it’s going to hit EDH. A spammable decent punisher effect that hits 3 opponents at once is going to make waves in the multiplayer EDH format for sure.

    If I don’t see this pop up in my EDH league (and I play in an extremely competitive meta), I will be extremely surprised.

    Not every deck will be able to play it, but in the decks that can run it it’s an easy game-ender.

    • eltratzo

      we have confirmation from melissa that its X times. not X+1 times. and while unintuitive for the word repeat it is consistent with how magic does this kind of effect. compare this to trade secrets. both cards have an arbitrary number of iterations. here it is determined by the value of X there by your opponents whims.
      this one is just “repeat X times”(i’d say “reiterate” would be cleaner but that word already has rules meaning). the other is “do this then repeat”

      • Zombie

        Seems like they could have worded it way better.

        • eltratzo

          somebody suggested “perform”. one problem with such things ist that every word that gets uses for rulestext can’t be used as a keyword later down the line. this, in conjunction with a want for consistent vocabulary, creates a tendency to use a very limited and stilted language on most cards. since there where already similar cards they probably just adapted already existing stock templating.
          that said, yes, especially for people less knowledgable about usual templating (and, as shown by you also thinking it to be 1+x, even some of the very enfranchised and knowledgeable players) this is a rather confusing choice of words.

          • Zombie

            The scanning issues come from the “repeat” clause. It implies that there’s a first occurrence to repeat, but in function the card doesn’t do that.

            Just seems like a really basic wording failure on Wizards’ part.

            “Each opponent loses 3 life X times. Each time an opponent would lose life this way, they may choose to sacrifice a nonland permanent instead.”

            1. Does not imply with a “repeat” clause that there is a first occurrence via poor word choice.

            2. Expresses that X directly equals the number of life-loss/edict occurrences.

            3. Directly ties the edict clause to the life loss in the manner of a replacement effect.

            4. Does not allow the edict clause to replace anything other than Torment of Hailfire’s effect.

            5. Accomplishes intended goal of the card’s effect.

            I don’t understand how design could mess this up.

            And I’m certain there’s probably even still a cleaner way to express it than what I suggested, but my suggestion is still far more intuitive than the original Wizards wording.

            Putting the word “Repeat” in the text box is pointless and leaves too much to player interpretation. It’s not immediately clear what the card does.

          • Deadly Berry

            It should say “Do this effect X times” to save the misconception.

          • Happy The Cat

            they could have also made it x1bb. do it once, repeat x times. removes the issue, allows it to be cast without it’s mana cost, and lets be real, there is no good reason for this to ever be cast for bb. increasing the mana cost and turning the X into a glorified multikicker makes the spell more reliable and keeps the wording cleaner.

          • Zombie

            At BB it’s an alright ability. It’s not even close to overpowered to cast it for BB and get the effect once.

            It’s either a harder to cast Edict effect that doesn’t even guarantee a major hit (they can sac any nonland permanent, so they just sac their worst – and hitting something in Standard with that on T2 means you’ve basically wasted it), or it’s just a far worse Bump in the Night.

            Until you start chaining the effect multiple times with a high X-count, it’s not really that impactful. Being able to cast it for BB isn’t that relevant, certainly not past the early game.

          • Happy The Cat

            I could easly see this with any black commander that has Nykthos,a few spells that deny board and this can just eat people. this feels like it will be like Exsanguinate #2, but with the possibility to clear board and hand or deal 3x the damage, yeah it’s got a weakness to tokens but there are ways to deal with that. Any deck that runs things like Painful Quandary can pick up this card.

          • Zombie

            Honestly I see it more replacing Debt to the Deathless in the B/W/X decks that run it as an equalizer/finisher.

          • Fränk

            This is exactly what I was thinking!

            In the end they probably just took an old wording on the card (when it still was “torment”), updated it without thinking and greenlit it. Tabak’s also tweeted something along “you torment x times”… well, “torment” got thrown out and it should’ve been better reworked after that.

          • Kal El

            Sadly people are extremely confused. I read it once and understood if you pay zero nothing happens. Makes sense but I’ve been playing magic for 20+ years so I understand the game is very wordy and to understand you have to have some history with the game.

          • Zombie

            It’s solely because of the implication of “repeat” that there’s any issue at all.

  • NC

    take THAT enchantments

  • chad

    this could get banned in standard, total blow out if it goes unanswered.

  • William Powell

    Why is this not mythic? I love this card, but why does this even exist??? Who ever is in charge at wizards…. they need to be fired and I love them for every broken card we’ve been getting lately. lol

  • Blahblahblahbla

    Nath of the Gilt-Leaf, Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed, Wound Reflection, It That Betrays.. This pairs so well with some of my very favorite cards in EDH. Can we also talk about just how well this pairs with the creature card Nicol Bolas?! Omg..

    As a professional griefer and black control fan, this might be my favorite EDH card since Deadeye Navigator.

  • Vizzerdrix

    Hmm a slightly better exsanguiate maybe, I’ll defiantly run it in my teysa edh, infinite mana either card I win, not infinite mana but a lot this could either set up a infinite combo or maybe win either way I’m sold

    • MrAptronym

      Exsanguinate always kills if you pay their life total though, this doesn’t. Teysa is a good case for this, but I don’t see it replacing exsanguinate in most decks, (But this card does seem like a lot of fun)

  • GABRIel

    Mana Cost:
    Converted Mana Cost:
    Card Text:
    Target opponent loses 5 life unless that player discards two cards or sacrifices a creature or planeswalker. Repeat this process once.

    THIs is for the card remorseless punishment. Since this also has the repeat clause I believe THAt the people saying you don’t get the effect for bb are wrong.

    • Vincent Godin-Filion

      The first line of text states an effect, then the second line states you do it once more. That is not the xase with Torment of Hailfire. Nowhere on Torment does it say the card does something if you pay zero. The wording is completely different.

  • MrAptronym

    This reads more like Psuedo-code than most cards. Interesting formatting.

  • Scathain

    Should work better than exsanguinate in monoblack tron, and that’s saying something. Best used immediately after a Black Sun’s Zenith.

  • Vincent Godin-Filion

    No it doesn’t… All the card says it does is go off x times. You’re just assuming it’s x+1 because of the word repeat I’m guessing. But nowhere on the card it says there is an effect appart from the X. The word repeat doesn’t hold some special ruling in Mtg. It just means to “perform”. As in “do this x times”. Nothing in the rules implies the word repeat adds +1 to an X ability.

  • Vincent Godin-Filion

    I really can’t see how people are coming to this conclusion. English is not my first language, but if I’m told “repeat your name three times”, I’ll say it three times, not four. Am I wrong? Would you say it 4 times when asked to repeat it 3 times?

  • Vincent Godin-Filion

    Magic’s ruling doesn’t work on implied meanings, conotations nor linguistic interpretations. It’s coding. Do exactly as is coded on the card, whatever your personal extrapolations might be. Nowhere on the card is it said that there is an effect taking place before the “Repeat X times” line. You can’t just alter the card’s text to suit your own sense of the meaning of the word “repeat” because you feel like it should imply some hidden directive. Do as is coded on the card’s ruling. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn’t a game of litterary extrapolation.