GruesomeGoo, that's for the foil versions that have flavour text. It's an odd little thing wizards did for tenth edition.
majinara
★★☆☆☆ (2.2/5.0)(2 votes)
It got a low rating because it's horrible Sironos. It should have 0.5 instead of 3. Why? It gives your opponent a choice. Most cards that give your opponent a choice are bad (not all), because they let your opponent decide what happens.
This aura is pretty narrow. Why? It works only on creatures your opponent intends to block or attack with. You can't, for example, stop a Royal Assassin with it.
Also, on small creatures this is mostly wasted. Because small creatures are normally not worth spending a single kill card on. And then your opponent can still chump block with it, sacrifice it for something or whatever.
On small creatures, this is not as horrible, but still bad. Why? Your opponent can simply keep attacking you. Yes he receives damage, but his creature will do more damage, thus killing you before the aura would kill him.
Your opponent can also remove the aura later on, with disenchant effects or giving the creature protection from black.
Or maybe your opponent got a lifegain deck, then he doesn't care at all either.
It's narrow, unreliable, and simply plain bad.
solidzaku
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Just like Pacifism, I have a nice Aura Graft waiting for this guy.
sincleanser
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
I like it because 1) Life LOSS, not damage , 2) It really is blacks version of Pacifism, 3) It does give a choice, and either choice results in the same thing.
Fanaticmogg
★★★☆☆ (3.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Not very good, for simple reasons: If they don't need the attacker/blocker, they just won't use it. If they DO need the creature more than they need the life, you've got a half-decent but highly situational burn spell.
HOWEVER, when you force the creature to attack/block, things get really fun. Stick, say, a Lust for War on the same creature (to stick with the theme), and this quickly becomes a huge threat. Or if your opponent happens to use a lot of red creatures that have the ability already, this becomes a nice counter-pick for a burn deck (Note: This was reprinted in the same set as Bloodrock Cyclops. Coincidence?)
GruesomeGoo
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Ah, I get it. Thanks Scepter, didn't play a lot of Tenth apparently.
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I used this card, and it worked out great. Until warhammer came into the picture.
Traius
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
2 people have called it black's version of pacifism. No it isn't. Pacifism will be be better almost all the time. Why? Because this is at BEST pacifism. Anytime the opponent uses it to block or attack, it's because that choice was more important than 3 life. Pacifism wouldn't let him have that choice....
Fictionarious
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
If you think this is a bad card because "it gives them a choice", you have little to no deckbuilding imagination.
Browbeat is a decent card. Vexing Devil is a dang decent card. Blazing Salvo is a great card. "It gives them a choice" is a bad argument when either choice is undercosted for its effect and your deck is prepared to punish them quickly for either choice.
But, is this card on their level, efficiency-wise? Not really. Does this card require more than a bit of thought to be used effectively? Yes.
To respond directly to some of the arguments you present, majinara:
If you plan on beating decks with Royal Assassins in them, and you don't put cards in that can deal with him (burn, black kill spells, whatever), then that's your fault, not this card's.
Scenario: T1: I drop a Vampire Lacerator and pass the turn their turn, they drop a Goblin Guide and swing for two. I declare no blockers. T2: I put a contaminated bond on their Goblin Guide, and swing for two with my Lacerator
Now they have two choices. They either keep attacking at a significant loss, or they stop attacking so they can block and trade down, losing 3 life in the process. Worst case scenario, they burn the lacerator with a bolt or a shock, and they're left with a near-usesless Goblin Guide. If you're interested in winning the damage race, and are willing to use the rest of your deck to compensate for this card's weaknesses, it can be the right choice.
This was just an easy example using popular competitive cards, but I can think of many other T1 T2 plays that would demonstrate the effectiveness of this card in a damage race deck.
Bbone37
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
pacifism this most certainly is not, and not because of the choice, but rather it will generally not do what you need it to do. As stated, on a utility creature, there is no need to attack or block. Where the disparity can be best seen is on a large beater. Lets just pick a titan. So you put this on my Titan. So what? I will continue to attack, get the color-specific benifit from turning said titan sideways, and hit you for 6. Sure I take 3, but I will be winning this race. Comapre to a REAL pacifism, I cannot attack at all. So this card is not bad realted to choice, Fictionarious, but rather because it just generally does not perform well. Just use one of black various kill cards and be done with it.
EDIT: PS; worst case scenario in your example, Fictionarious, is they bolt the vampire, put some kind of equipment on the guide, and continue to destroy you. This isnt a build-around card, this is a find-a-better-option card.
Comments (12)
Why? It gives your opponent a choice. Most cards that give your opponent a choice are bad (not all), because they let your opponent decide what happens.
This aura is pretty narrow. Why? It works only on creatures your opponent intends to block or attack with. You can't, for example, stop a Royal Assassin with it.
Also, on small creatures this is mostly wasted. Because small creatures are normally not worth spending a single kill card on. And then your opponent can still chump block with it, sacrifice it for something or whatever.
On small creatures, this is not as horrible, but still bad. Why? Your opponent can simply keep attacking you. Yes he receives damage, but his creature will do more damage, thus killing you before the aura would kill him.
Your opponent can also remove the aura later on, with disenchant effects or giving the creature protection from black.
Or maybe your opponent got a lifegain deck, then he doesn't care at all either.
It's narrow, unreliable, and simply plain bad.
If they don't need the attacker/blocker, they just won't use it.
If they DO need the creature more than they need the life, you've got a half-decent but highly situational burn spell.
HOWEVER, when you force the creature to attack/block, things get really fun. Stick, say, a Lust for War on the same creature (to stick with the theme), and this quickly becomes a huge threat. Or if your opponent happens to use a lot of red creatures that have the ability already, this becomes a nice counter-pick for a burn deck (Note: This was reprinted in the same set as Bloodrock Cyclops. Coincidence?)
Browbeat is a decent card. Vexing Devil is a dang decent card. Blazing Salvo is a great card. "It gives them a choice" is a bad argument when either choice is undercosted for its effect and your deck is prepared to punish them quickly for either choice.
But, is this card on their level, efficiency-wise? Not really.
Does this card require more than a bit of thought to be used effectively? Yes.
To respond directly to some of the arguments you present, majinara:
If you plan on beating decks with Royal Assassins in them, and you don't put cards in that can deal with him (burn, black kill spells, whatever), then that's your fault, not this card's.
Scenario:
T1: I drop a Vampire Lacerator and pass the turn
their turn, they drop a Goblin Guide and swing for two. I declare no blockers.
T2: I put a contaminated bond on their Goblin Guide, and swing for two with my Lacerator
Now they have two choices. They either keep attacking at a significant loss, or they stop attacking so they can block and trade down, losing 3 life in the process. Worst case scenario, they burn the lacerator with a bolt or a shock, and they're left with a near-usesless Goblin Guide. If you're interested in winning the damage race, and are willing to use the rest of your deck to compensate for this card's weaknesses, it can be the right choice.
This was just an easy example using popular competitive cards, but I can think of many other T1 T2 plays that would demonstrate the effectiveness of this card in a damage race deck.
EDIT: PS; worst case scenario in your example, Fictionarious, is they bolt the vampire, put some kind of equipment on the guide, and continue to destroy you. This isnt a build-around card, this is a find-a-better-option card.