4 damage is a key number these days, but I'm not sure this is worth running over Flame Slash
boneclub
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(3 votes)
It's not going to replace Flame Slash. Flame Slash only costs R, whereas this costs 2RR. This is a very powerful card, don't get me wrong, but it would either be run beside Flame Slash or not at all.
Anyway, good card. To say it's overcosted is to support power creep. 4/5.
masonthekiller
★☆☆☆☆ (1.0/5.0)(1 vote)
There are better ways to spend your mana.
Dragon23
★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Not the most efficient burn for the cost, which is why it won't see play.
jsttu
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
flavorful and a 2 for 1, it is expensive but gets the job done. 3/5
RunedServitor
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Besides the extra two damage on the side, this has the advantage of being an instant. Flame Slash is, as you guys have already said, better in the early game, but late game, when you've got the mana for it, it's functionally free, and therefore way better.
blurrymadness
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Were both clauses target creature or player this thing would be quite good. As it is, I'd almost always run staggershock instead of this
Comments (8)
That is, in decks that use Flame Slash.
Anyway, good card. To say it's overcosted is to support power creep. 4/5.