Yes, yes, I know, Shatter has been made obsolete again and again and again...
So lets make it obsolete once more.
I think I am right in saying this card is strictly better than Shatter.
Also, what do we learn from this?
Destroying artifacts is less powerful than it was thought in 1993.
Destroying lands is more powerful than it was thought in 1993.
Arachibutyrophobia
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(10 votes)
this card has been looong overdue
Totema
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Hey, nice Sword of Things and Stuff you have there. How much did you pay for it? $30? Boom, one red mana and a $0.25 common later and it's scrap metal.
Tzaph
★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Sigh... still holding out hope for Smash to Smithereens to be in a Core set. Maybe M14...
lorendorky
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(7 votes)
Melvin points for having Koth of the Hammer flavor text since his +1 ability opens up a single red mana.
tachiKC
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
An instant speed destroy card for 1 mana is nothing to scoff at. And with all of the relevant artifacts in standard right now, this is a great card.
Assume that you have two important artifacts in play, and access to three red mana. And you have two shatter on hand. And your opponent mindslavers you. Then he can play only one of the shatters to kill one of your artifacts. If you'd have two smelt on hand, he could kill both your artifacts.
There is no strictly better in mtg. Just "better in nearly all cases". :)
luca_barelli
★★★☆☆ (3.9/5.0)(4 votes)
majinara, that is absurd.
The card does exactly the same thing as Shatter, but costs 1 less. It is strictly better except in some ridiculously convoluted scenario that you made up.
NickDay
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
This and Liquimetal Coating are instant removal of any non-indestructable permanent in the game! That's a darn cheap way to remove a planeswalker and/or land!
@atemu1234 Well, maybe he has 4 other Cavern of Souls/Ancient Ziggurats. Or maybe his Mindslaver was shrouded and there was no other legal target.
@luca_barelli "Strictly Better" comes from game theory, where it is actually "Strictly Dominant Strategy." From Gametheory.net: A strategy is strictly dominant if, regardless of what any other players do, the strategy earns a player a strictly higher payoff than any other. Hence, a strategy is strictly dominant if it is always strictly better than any other strategy, for any profile of other players' actions. If a player has a strictly dominant strategy, than he or she will always play it in equilibrium. Also, if one strategy is strictly dominant, than all others are dominated. For example, in the prisoner's dilemma, each player has a strictly dominant strategy.
And in regard to the other player, if they're able to play Mindslaver, well, then playing Smelt over Shatter won't be a Strictly Dominant Strategy, would it?
immelmann
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
strictly better than Crush
LordRandomness
★★★☆☆ (3.9/5.0)(4 votes)
@majinara: That's silly, generally we discount "turn control" shenanigans since they basically turn worse cards into better ones. The correct answer is: "Shatter isn't countered by Mental Misstep, this is." That might, MIGHT actually come up in some hypothetical format.
@immelmann: Not quite, Crush can't be redirected onto your artifact creatures. It's a narrow benefit, but lowering target range can be useful if you're running a lot of them and you know your opponent has a bunch of redirect/copy (or Wild Ricochet!)
@majinara: If you have this in your hand when your opponent plays Mindslaver, and a open to use it, then use it to kill the Mindslaver, don't sit there like an idiot. If your opponent plays Mindslaver, and you have 1 mana open, you can Smelt it, but you can't Shatter it. Basically, you're wrong. "Strictly better" is Strictly better.
j_mindfingerpainter
★★★★☆ (4.1/5.0)(5 votes)
Guys, stop being extremely literal about the definition of "strictly better". The point is that if someone had the chance to run this or Shatter, what do you think that they would pick?
If you're extremely literal about something being "strictly better" than something else, than nothing is "strictly better" than something else except this:
Stupid Card {0}
Instant
Before the game begins, you may search your library for Stupid Card and cast it without paying its mana cost.
Guys. You shouldn't base the definition of "strictly better" on what your opponent might play, you should base it on how you build your deck. If you're playing a grixis deck complete with Muddle the Mixture, Dimir Infiltrator and Shred Memory, you would most definitely run Shatter (or some better two-cost variant). Just like Cancel isn't strictly worse than counterspell- Boseiju, Who Shelters All can make it uncounterable and any three-cost transmute can find it.
ndrew68
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Strictly less useful than Shatter in limited. HA. I suppose Shatter doesnt have Koth of Hammer flavor text. Koth is pure awesome
Lotsofpoopy
★☆☆☆☆ (1.5/5.0)(2 votes)
Nice cheap artifact removal. This card will see a lot of play.
myztikrice
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(3 votes)
Mental Misstep is not a "some obscene situation" or "unique deck strategy" so no, this is not strictly better than Shatter.
With the above logic nothing in the world would be strictly better because of some obscene situation or unique deck strategy. Obviously the definition is, its the same card but cheaper or more powerful... use common sense.
@myztikrice If mental misstep had cost instead, ensuring that nobody would run it, would you be claiming the same thing or not?
Continue
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
On the other hand, we got Craterize, showing that they really don't want us to have Stone Rain again... 5/5
Salient
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
He who Smelt it, dealt with it.
Anzu-chan
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Come on guys, please stop whining. Shatter was already obsoleted since Alpha. Disenchant existed.
BegleOne
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(2 votes)
In Legacy, there's a card called "Chalice of the Void", and it's usually played with "X" equaling "1".
In that situation, which happens all the time, would you rather have Smelt or Shatter?
Dream_Twist
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Okay wizards. Can we get a Koth Planeswalker in a core set? Chandra is really dumb right now. Oh and can he have a phoenix like chandra's phoenix too?
azure_drake222222
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
I will use this to destroy MasterOfEtherium.
Stinga
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
@ j_mindfingerpainter Still not strictly better than other "You win" abilities. Commandeering that would be glorious. I think the point of strictly better is that that there is no possible situation ever that would make another card better. For instance I would rather have a mountain than Stupid Card if an enemy dropped a Mindslaver on me and had a Commandeer on me. Lets say you did not cast it earlier cuz of Chancellor of the Annex. I know that definition sounds annoying but to me it is a point of pride in magic. The fact it is so diverse, so vivid a tapestry of checks and balances that nothing is strictly better than anything else. It adds a lot to the game. But yea, I would almost always run this over shatter.
adrian.malacoda
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(4 votes)
This is strictly better than Shatter. It is the same effect for less mana.
The generally accepted definition of strictly better implies that you are using the card for its intended purpose, which is to destroy an opponent's artifact. It doesn't take into effect things like Treachery, Commandeer, Redirect, Mindslaver, Donate, etc. where an opponent gains control of your spell or permanent. In a REASONABLE situation you always want Smelt over Shatter.
Another example is Lightning Bolt vs Shock. Lightning Bolt is strictly better because it provides more value (3 damage over 2 damage) for the same amount of mana. You can say, "but what if they use Psychic Theft and cast my Lightning Bolt targeting me" or "what if I have Near-Death Experience out and am at 3 life" but the fact that there are real specific and unusual corner cases where the weaker card is preferable does not mitigate the fact that Lightning Bolt and Smelt provide more VALUE over Shock and Shatter.
And, when building your deck, you want value. You don't use weaker cards in anticipation that they'll be Comandeered or Treacheried away from you, unless the meta calls for it (as I imagine you'd have to deal with Chalice, for example, but -- speaking as someone with no real knowledge of the Legacy meta -- I'd imagine you would sideboard the less efficient one for that specific particular case)
atemu1234
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(3 votes)
@majinara Ok, strictly better means exactly "better in nearly all cases". Also, if you only have 3 mana when they both cast AND use Mindslaver, you might as well concede anyway. Maybe add more lands to your deck, then challenge them again. Also, if you have 3 free mana why didn't you cast Shatter/Smelt before they targeted you with Minslaver?
People strictly better doesn't mean better in all situations. It means it does the same thing for less mana or more good things for the same cost or more good things for a lower cost. It doesn't mean, "Oh well in situation XYZ where the heavens are aligned and timmyforever finally gets laid this card is worse than the other!" That's not an equalizer. That's just you being a whiny little ***.
@atemu1234 You can't actually kill a mindslaver if you opponent has mana for it unless you use something like krosan grip. Even if they pass priority to you after casting mindslaver, and you cast smelt on it, they can just respond and use the mindslaver on you in response.
@BegleOne That's only 1 card. Getting around chalice of the void is playing against the meta. If you had no idea what you were up against, this card is 100% better than shatter (although running artifact removal when you have no idea what you're against is overall just a bad idea).
JimmyNoobPlayer
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(3 votes)
Mark Rosewater mentioned in a recent article (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/213) that Wizards R&D uses the term "strictly better" to mean better in all reasonable circumstances. The single card Meddling Mage guarantees that no non-land card will ever be playable in every circumstance. For the term to have any meaning at all, you need to relax the strictness a tiny bit.
I'm not saying that Maro's words should be treated like the Holy Writ of God, or that we need to use terms the same way R&D does, but I think using it this way makes a lot of sense.
I think Smelt is clearly strictly better than Shatter because it does the same thing for less mana, and it's strictly better than Crush because it destroys more stuff. Even if Mental Misstep or Redirect or Transmute might make you prefer a worse card in some situations.
tavaritz
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
My gripe on this cards is: Is Koth a moron?
If the artifact has darksteel in its name the this won't destroy it, as all darksteel artifacts are indestructible. If it doesn't have darksteel in its name then why Koth assumes that it could have been made of darksteel?
IMHO for the quote better card could be this:
Instant
Remove target artifact from the game.
"Looks like that wasn't darksteel after all." —Koth of the Hammer
Kirbster
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
He who smelt it....
DaLucaray
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I wish Demystify was printed in M13. That would give us almost a cycle, with each color getting a simple card that destroys what that color is good at.
White: Demystify
Blue: Cancel
Black: Murder
Red: Smelt
Green: Naturalize
Cancel and Murder have the same CMC and color weight, as do Smelt and Demystify.
CogMonocle
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
@tavaritz
---> The point
---> Your head
Hunter06
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
They better not change the flavortext on any of the later printing *art could use an update though*
Comments (47)
So lets make it obsolete once more.
I think I am right in saying this card is strictly better than Shatter.
Also, what do we learn from this?
Destroying artifacts is less powerful than it was thought in 1993.
Destroying lands is more powerful than it was thought in 1993.
Ahh, I feel 10 again! :D
Assume that you have two important artifacts in play, and access to three red mana. And you have two shatter on hand. And your opponent mindslavers you. Then he can play only one of the shatters to kill one of your artifacts. If you'd have two smelt on hand, he could kill both your artifacts.
There is no strictly better in mtg. Just "better in nearly all cases". :)
The card does exactly the same thing as Shatter, but costs 1 less. It is strictly better except in some ridiculously convoluted scenario that you made up.
Why yes, that's also true if your opponent has Chalice of the Void on 1 counter. Also if your opponent Meddling Mages Shatter. Same case with Nevermore and Voidstone Gargoyle. And, as you said, your opponent Mindslavered/ultimated you with Sorin Markov.
@atemu1234
Well, maybe he has 4 other Cavern of Souls/Ancient Ziggurats. Or maybe his Mindslaver was shrouded and there was no other legal target.
@luca_barelli
"Strictly Better" comes from game theory, where it is actually "Strictly Dominant Strategy." From Gametheory.net: A strategy is strictly dominant if, regardless of what any other players do, the strategy earns a player a strictly higher payoff than any other. Hence, a strategy is strictly dominant if it is always strictly better than any other strategy, for any profile of other players' actions. If a player has a strictly dominant strategy, than he or she will always play it in equilibrium. Also, if one strategy is strictly dominant, than all others are dominated. For example, in the prisoner's dilemma, each player has a strictly dominant strategy.
And in regard to the other player, if they're able to play Mindslaver, well, then playing Smelt over Shatter won't be a Strictly Dominant Strategy, would it?
@immelmann: Not quite, Crush can't be redirected onto your artifact creatures. It's a narrow benefit, but lowering target range can be useful if you're running a lot of them and you know your opponent has a bunch of redirect/copy (or Wild Ricochet!)
three... more... months...
If you're extremely literal about something being "strictly better" than something else, than nothing is "strictly better" than something else except this:
Stupid Card {0}
Instant
Before the game begins, you may search your library for Stupid Card and cast it without paying its mana cost.
Stupid Card resolves immediately.
You win the game.
I suppose Shatter doesnt have Koth of Hammer flavor text. Koth is pure awesome
With the above logic nothing in the world would be strictly better because of some obscene situation or unique deck strategy. Obviously the definition is, its the same card but cheaper or more powerful... use common sense.
@myztikrice
If mental misstep had cost
In that situation, which happens all the time, would you rather have Smelt or Shatter?
The generally accepted definition of strictly better implies that you are using the card for its intended purpose, which is to destroy an opponent's artifact. It doesn't take into effect things like Treachery, Commandeer, Redirect, Mindslaver, Donate, etc. where an opponent gains control of your spell or permanent. In a REASONABLE situation you always want Smelt over Shatter.
Another example is Lightning Bolt vs Shock. Lightning Bolt is strictly better because it provides more value (3 damage over 2 damage) for the same amount of mana. You can say, "but what if they use Psychic Theft and cast my Lightning Bolt targeting me" or "what if I have Near-Death Experience out and am at 3 life" but the fact that there are real specific and unusual corner cases where the weaker card is preferable does not mitigate the fact that Lightning Bolt and Smelt provide more VALUE over Shock and Shatter.
And, when building your deck, you want value. You don't use weaker cards in anticipation that they'll be Comandeered or Treacheried away from you, unless the meta calls for it (as I imagine you'd have to deal with Chalice, for example, but -- speaking as someone with no real knowledge of the Legacy meta -- I'd imagine you would sideboard the less efficient one for that specific particular case)
People strictly better doesn't mean better in all situations. It means it does the same thing for less mana or more good things for the same cost or more good things for a lower cost. It doesn't mean, "Oh well in situation XYZ where the heavens are aligned and timmyforever finally gets laid this card is worse than the other!" That's not an equalizer. That's just you being a whiny little ***.
You can't actually kill a mindslaver if you opponent has mana for it unless you use something like krosan grip. Even if they pass priority to you after casting mindslaver, and you cast smelt on it, they can just respond and use the mindslaver on you in response.
@BegleOne
That's only 1 card. Getting around chalice of the void is playing against the meta. If you had no idea what you were up against, this card is 100% better than shatter (although running artifact removal when you have no idea what you're against is overall just a bad idea).
I'm not saying that Maro's words should be treated like the Holy Writ of God, or that we need to use terms the same way R&D does, but I think using it this way makes a lot of sense.
I think Smelt is clearly strictly better than Shatter because it does the same thing for less mana, and it's strictly better than Crush because it destroys more stuff. Even if Mental Misstep or Redirect or Transmute might make you prefer a worse card in some situations.
If the artifact has darksteel in its name the this won't destroy it, as all darksteel artifacts are indestructible. If it doesn't have darksteel in its name then why Koth assumes that it could have been made of darksteel?
IMHO for the quote better card could be this:
Instant
Remove target artifact from the game.
"Looks like that wasn't darksteel after all."
—Koth of the Hammer
White: Demystify
Blue: Cancel
Black: Murder
Red: Smelt
Green: Naturalize
Cancel and Murder have the same CMC and color weight, as do Smelt and Demystify.
---> The point
---> Your head
3/5 Stars