So many good cards in Zendikar to go with Sanguine Bond. Even without the combo, this card is ridiculously good/cheap.
JosirisDavid
★★★☆☆ (3.9/5.0)(7 votes)
Just need a few 1 or 2 drop vampires to cast this card. Furthermore it helps to add +1/+1 counters on my vampire that is equipped with blade of the bloodchief. =)
True_Mumin
★★☆☆☆ (2.5/5.0)(9 votes)
Damn, I don't know... My inner Timmy really wants to love this card, but my inner Spike reminds me that it's potentially more of a dead draw than any Enchant Creature Aura. Well, gotta playtest to find out its worth!
Lestat13
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.9/5.0)(6 votes)
So almost good, it really should be one vampire, and two life.
Arachibutyrophobia
★☆☆☆☆ (1.5/5.0)(3 votes)
THIS CARD IS AWESOME!
touchdown
★☆☆☆☆ (1.2/5.0)(4 votes)
The problem here is that it's a sorcery.
DyadyaIstvan
★★★★☆ (4.3/5.0)(5 votes)
Beautiful card, and damned useful. 2 vampires is a problem? Have you looked at Zendikar? There are a boatload of playable vampires!
Nighthawk42
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.6/5.0)(4 votes)
Not that hard to have 2 vampires, but the time you need creature destruction the most is when you don't have them.
DominusNox
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Considering that black's other creature destruction is limited to black only, vampire decks will have an incredible need for this card. in most other cases disfigure or doomblade will outmatch it.
i'd give it 5 stars simply for the combo capabiliy. you build an army until sanguine bond hits the table. then you move to win by using this to clear big defenders and you're vampire's lifelink will do the rest.
Owls_and_More_Owls
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I want to own this card with my hands. True, it moves at sorcery speed, but this card isn't meant to be a substitute for Terror/Doomblade, just to supplement it.
DarthKithkin
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(3 votes)
Why cant this be tribal!!!??!?! WHY CANT THERE BE A VAMPIRE HARBINGER!??!?!?!?!?!? (Why cant this be an instant?)
Vinifera7
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(3 votes)
It's a Sorcery, but that's to be expected of black removal for the most part. It is quite a large drawback for it not to be Instant removal though. Still, I'm sure it plays great in limited.
Pwnsaw
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(2 votes)
A great card, but it can backfire. Totally worth the casting condition though.
I had 3 in my hand and only 1 vampire out in a game today, made me very sad. Worst case scenario that time, but I was already screwed since I didn't get enough creatures.
Last_Of_The_Order
★☆☆☆☆ (1.6/5.0)(4 votes)
Maybe I'm an idiot, but it's been a while for me and I'm a bit rusty. Hopefully someone could clarify this for me: if an opponent plays Feast of Blood while he has two vampires on the field and in response I Lightning Bolt one of the two vampires he has, his spell should still resolve normally despite him being down to one vampire now, correct?
Since "Cast" = "Play" ("Play Feast of Blood only if you control two or more vampires"), and at the time he cast/played Feast of Blood he had two vampires, the spell should still resolve even if he loses both vampires after having cast/played Feast of Blood but before it resolves, correct? The spell's already been CAST while he met the condition to cast it; it's now just waiting to RESOLVE?
At least, that is my understanding. Perhaps I'm wrong or off on this, but my train of thought is that he no longer has to have two or more vampires in his control AFTER he's cast the spell but before its resolved. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong/let me know if I'm right?
Guest686042655
★☆☆☆☆ (1.4/5.0)(5 votes)
Since I saw this card on the Zendikar list it has upset me greatly. The design is flavorful and probably makes Vorthos clap, but insults Johnny, Spike, and probably Timmy though I haven't thought about how on the latter. The Johnny in me is insulted because he's not allowed to find uses outside of a Vampire-centric deck. The Spike in me is insulted because it's a dead draw in some very likely situations. The Vorthos in me is cheering the art and the evocative feel of sending his Vampire minions to feast on the blood of another, but is also slightly confused as to why he needs any Vampires at all to profit from the life blood of another planeswalker's creation if he's a got black mana to syphon with. Cards like this want to invoke a particular feel, and this one accomplishes that through everything except its first line of text. As Last_Of_The_Order correctly assumes, the templating for this card makes it pathetically uninteractive and boringly niche.
Tap target creature and gain life equal to its power. Destroy that creature if you control two or more Vampires.
I feel that the above card is both more evocative and less hand-holdingly insulting. It allows Vorthos to use his black mana as he'd expect, regardless of the state of his Vampire army. It allows Spike to see it as much less of a dead draw, even if it remains sorcery speed. It still doesn't really appeal to Johnny because it's fairly narrow, but is much less insulting to his deck building desires.
In truth this card upsets me because it is so evocative without paying any attention to the interactivity of Magic: the Gathering. A rare miss in my book.
ScissorsLizard
★☆☆☆☆ (1.5/5.0)(3 votes)
I think it's a very well balanced card. Sure, it might be a dead draw sometimes, but if it is, you're not playing a full vampire deck (which is what Wizards is intending with this card). As for Last_Of_The_Order's question, yes, the spell will already have been played by the time you can kill a vampire in response. So there is no way to stop it once the spell is declared.
Gezus82
★★☆☆☆ (2.6/5.0)(4 votes)
ok, doom blade is good, so they take out the clause that it can't kill black and make you gain 4 life. I suppose the downside is that it' made for vamp tribal, but as far as tribal spells go this is killer.
2 vamps a problem? theres hella cheap vamps and you probably have a couple bloodghats bouncing around anyway. worst case scenario is ur opponent has no creature and u kill a bloodghast for life.
StreamHopper
★★★☆☆ (3.3/5.0)(5 votes)
This card has saved my ass so many times. Great to combo with Blade of the Bloodchief and Quest for the Gravelord. Nothing says lovin' like destroying a big creature, gaining four life, putting a +2/+2 counter on one of your bladed creatures, and putting a 5/5 zombie on your side of the field. I have quickly come to love my Vampire deck.
nineyears
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(3 votes)
great removal but it can backfire too. i have remove bombs from my opponent battlefield including black dreatures " something that doom blade cant do" and have gain 4 life which is awsome it doesnt get any better. however i have had only one vampire in some situations and it is really drepessing.
it should have being an instant...
CatsAreCthala
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
This card is so flavorful. Pun intended.
AXER
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(3 votes)
Nice flavor. Combine with Sanguine Bond and Blade of Bloodchief.
PaladinOfSunhome
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Really strong in any Vampire deck, mostly if you have cheap drop Vampires and you can cast and with it's cheap cost it will just blow any creature away and give you life.
3.5
Rode
★☆☆☆☆ (1.5/5.0)(1 vote)
Is anyone else somewhat disturbed that it can target black? As a cheap black removal with a nice kick back, and as a vampire tribal card, you'd think it would be only non-black/non-arifact creatures... As it stands I think this card is overpowered, it's only drawback is that it's a sorcery. If you consider the combos available in a pure vampire deck and all the cards intended to fill such a deck this card almost carries the tribe. If anyone can name such a cheap unpredudical removal for mono black I would love the reference. The protection against removal that black has always flauted is moot vs. a deck sporting 4 if these...
Too niche.... Unrealistic flavour.... Too cheap... And simply too powerful...
Thank god it isn't an instant..
ultratog1028
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(8 votes)
pros: 1. costs 2 mana. 2. kills something. 3. gains you life.
cons: 1. requires 2 creatures of a specific type in play (making it unplayable until turn 3 at least) 2. sorcery speed. 3. target can be regenerated.
Azazyel
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
If we're talking about removing black creatures, I'd rather run Tendrils of Corruption or Urge to Feed. Vamps pack a punch but are quite fragile, so it's not hard to see this card being a dead draw if all you have on the field is a Bloodthrone Vampire after you were forced to sacrifice your other dude(s) thanks to a previous combat trick, and the opponent is clearly accelerating into something annoying.
Serberus_08
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Love it but i hate the sorcery speed, and like ultratog1028 said, they can be regenerated, which i just realized. I mean its great in casual play but i'd rock Doom Blade or Smother etc.
Tovaras
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(3 votes)
@Serberus_08: You realize you can regen a a creature killed by doom blade, right?
BambooNickel
★★★★☆ (4.3/5.0)(3 votes)
why isn't this a tribal card?
Guest1162619373
★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0)(2 votes)
@Rode: Other targeted black removal spells that can target black creatures: Ghastly Demise and Vendetta among others. Black spells being able to target and destroy black creatures is not a new concept as black simply can kill most any creature on the board in some way.
wxnbvq1
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
IMO in mono-black vampires, this card is far better than tendrils of corruption. Why? Tendrils usually nets you four life like feast of blood, except that it is usually played at least turn 4 while feast of blood can usually be played by turn 3. Furthermore, feast completely and utterly destroys (screw regen) whereas tendrils deals damage which may be non-lethal. Great synergy with vampire lacerator
Discoduck
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Ugh. When the vamps are out, this gets ugly; particularly two of them in one turn.
Sironos
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Risky removal, sometimes it will be awesome, sometimes it will be a dead card. Not very reliable, it's for the kind of player who likes to take chances.
dark_hero
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Is it just me or does that vampire in the front look like it has a unibrow?
jemas42
★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Absolutely incredible for a vampire tribal.
Cheza
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
I would have printed this card a bit different (changing the casting cost to ):
"Cast Feast of Blood only if you control two or more Vampires. Destroy target non-artifact creature. If it's destroyed this way, put a +1/+1 counter on each vampire you control"
Since Vampires are a weenie tribe, they need something to push their P/T rating. The extra lifegain is nearly useless since life isn't such an issue. With that card, I might have thought about a vampire deck, but without it, it was useful for some limited tournaments.
Edit: Mmh... noticed Urge to Feed. ^_^ Still. Rather a more restrictive version that can't be played unless you have 2 vampires and a "non-tapping" effect for all vampires than any of the 2 current cards.
JaxsonBateman
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
It's not terrible, but it is really restrictive too - sometimes you just won't be able to stick 2 vampires (for example, if they keep spot removing them or play a sweeper), so it'll be a dead card. It's in the vampires deck in DotP2012, and it's often a dead card in there too as they have around ~4-5 non-vampire creatures in the deck, as well as other non-vampire cards (like removal).
Go for the Throat is significantly better for the same cost. I'd also run Doom Blade over this in most cases.
And @Wxnbvq1 - Tendrils of Corruption is heaps better. Yes, it's more expensive, but after your fifth land drop it starts netting your more life (and continues to ramp up), and it can be played at instant speed. I'd never consider running Feast of Blood over Go for the Throat/Doom Blade, but I'd still consider running Tendrils of Corruption (and in fact, do) in a monoblack deck.
Leafhopper
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(3 votes)
I love this card to death but just imagine if it was an instant.
Ferlord
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Since everything that can be said about this card has been said, I'm just going to point out that the two vampires in the close-center and far-left have complete derp faces.
Comments (38)
i'd give it 5 stars simply for the combo capabiliy. you build an army until sanguine bond hits the table. then you move to win by using this to clear big defenders and you're vampire's lifelink will do the rest.
I had 3 in my hand and only 1 vampire out in a game today, made me very sad. Worst case scenario that time, but I was already screwed since I didn't get enough creatures.
Since "Cast" = "Play" ("Play Feast of Blood only if you control two or more vampires"), and at the time he cast/played Feast of Blood he had two vampires, the spell should still resolve even if he loses both vampires after having cast/played Feast of Blood but before it resolves, correct? The spell's already been CAST while he met the condition to cast it; it's now just waiting to RESOLVE?
At least, that is my understanding. Perhaps I'm wrong or off on this, but my train of thought is that he no longer has to have two or more vampires in his control AFTER he's cast the spell but before its resolved. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong/let me know if I'm right?
Tap target creature and gain life equal to its power. Destroy that creature if you control two or more Vampires.
I feel that the above card is both more evocative and less hand-holdingly insulting. It allows Vorthos to use his black mana as he'd expect, regardless of the state of his Vampire army. It allows Spike to see it as much less of a dead draw, even if it remains sorcery speed. It still doesn't really appeal to Johnny because it's fairly narrow, but is much less insulting to his deck building desires.
In truth this card upsets me because it is so evocative without paying any attention to the interactivity of Magic: the Gathering. A rare miss in my book.
I suppose the downside is that it' made for vamp tribal, but as far as tribal spells go this is killer.
2 vamps a problem? theres hella cheap vamps and you probably have a couple bloodghats bouncing around anyway. worst case scenario is ur opponent has no creature and u kill a bloodghast for life.
it should have being an instant...
3.5
Too niche.... Unrealistic flavour.... Too cheap... And simply too powerful...
Thank god it isn't an instant..
cons: 1. requires 2 creatures of a specific type in play (making it unplayable until turn 3 at least) 2. sorcery speed. 3. target can be regenerated.
You realize you can regen a a creature killed by doom blade, right?
Why? Tendrils usually nets you four life like feast of blood, except that it is usually played at least turn 4 while feast of blood can usually be played by turn 3. Furthermore, feast completely and utterly destroys (screw regen) whereas tendrils deals damage which may be non-lethal.
Great synergy with vampire lacerator
"Cast Feast of Blood only if you control two or more Vampires. Destroy target non-artifact creature. If it's destroyed this way, put a +1/+1 counter on each vampire you control"
Since Vampires are a weenie tribe, they need something to push their P/T rating. The extra lifegain is nearly useless since life isn't such an issue. With that card, I might have thought about a vampire deck, but without it, it was useful for some limited tournaments.
Edit: Mmh... noticed Urge to Feed. ^_^
Still. Rather a more restrictive version that can't be played unless you have 2 vampires and a "non-tapping" effect for all vampires than any of the 2 current cards.
Go for the Throat is significantly better for the same cost. I'd also run Doom Blade over this in most cases.
And @Wxnbvq1 - Tendrils of Corruption is heaps better. Yes, it's more expensive, but after your fifth land drop it starts netting your more life (and continues to ramp up), and it can be played at instant speed. I'd never consider running Feast of Blood over Go for the Throat/Doom Blade, but I'd still consider running Tendrils of Corruption (and in fact, do) in a monoblack deck.
I also think the one to the left is Bloodthrone Vampire.