@Beargh, WotC didn't make Cancel because they "wanted to make more 3-costing counterspells", they wanted to set the cost of the standard counterspell at three. This is a better-than-standard counterspell, so it must allways cost more then the standard counterspell. Therefore, it can't be reprinted as long as the standard counterspell costs 3, but making a new version of this with a cost of 4 (or costing 3 but with the colorless part of it's cost replaced by colored mana of a non-blue color) is something they can do, and may do if a future set has a graveyard mechanic like Retrace, Flashback, Dredge, Recover, or Unearth.
Beargh
★☆☆☆☆ (1.4/5.0)(9 votes)
If they wanted to make more 3-costing counterspells, why didn't they re-print this and not cancel?
@A3Kitsune: I play Legacy, so R&D isn't going to change anything by making a three costing counterspell except make it more expensive for me to buy four. I highly doubt WotC thought that counterspell was too overpowered. WotC is just lazy and nerfed counterspell because they wanted to change things up without risking anything.
ImHung310
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
1 more mana then counterspell to remove it from the game(exile). counterspell was considered powerful so they made cancle. but cancle still does not have the exile ability like dissipate. with soooo many spells in the game that allows a player to re-cast it over and over again like the new Zenith spells in Mirrodin Besieged. this card is bound to go up in popularity and cost $$$.
gasimakos1
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
richard kane ferguson makes me want to play magic
Mr.Wimples
★★☆☆☆ (2.9/5.0)(8 votes)
@ClowWizardEriol No, this card is not strictly better than cancel
I really wish people would stop chucking that phrase around. Unless a card is exactly the same with some additional ability that is never a downside, it is not "strictly better". What happens if you've got a B/U deck that reanimates things from an opponents graveyard? You wouldn't use this, that would be counter-intuitive; you'd use cancels because it makes the spell you countered go where you want it to. The same is true with Hinder. Sure in the situation I described counterspells would be even better, but for arguments sake lets say you can't scrounge up a playset.
Lyoncet
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(6 votes)
Woot woot Innistrad reprint!
Guess I'll be dusting off some Mirage cards... never thought that would happen!
Shadoflaam
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(2 votes)
Holy SHIT. I just randomed into this. I had no idea the ISD version was a reprint, this thing is amazing! Wow, I totally just assumed it was a new card...
With the above logic, nothing would be "strictly better" because of some obscene situation or unique deck plan. What people mean is "mostly better", but who the hell cares?
psychichobo
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
For the most part, this is strictly better than Cancel. There ARE some decks that do want to use Cancel over this for specific reasons (opponent graveyard abuse, for example), but generally you want Dissipate just in they're packing some form of graveyard recursion, and this doesn't really compromise you when it offers that options.
Strictly better's a funny term though. Looming Shade is strictly better than Frozen Shade, but someone on the Necrogen Mist comments had a combo that relied on creatures having 0 power being the only ones that could attack.
So, basically, 'strictly better' can never really be truly applied for the most part, but generally there are a lot of cards - like this - where for the average user you'd prefer this version. We really need a new term for this.
Also, didn't realise this existed before Innistrad. Cool.
BongRipper420
★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Most people dont understand what 'Strictly better' means, so I'm going to elaborate real quick.
Lightning bolt is strictly better than Shock. The reason for this is that short of extremely obscure and esoteric situations, one would almost always prefer to cast the Bolt. The two cards are both red, have equal CMC, and have equal speed. The only difference between the two cards is damage, which Bolt simply does more of. Thus, it's strictly better.
Dissipate however, is not strictly better than Cancel. While the two are comparable, and Dissipate is usually better to prevent your opponent from using Disentomb or something of the sort, that doesn't make it strictly better. That's because there are plenty of reasons to want something in a graveyard as opposed to exiled. For example, if you run Tarmogoyf.
I hope that clears things up. There's a difference between usually better and strictly better.
And as for this card itself, I'm glad it got reprinted. It's a counterspell that's both balanced and elegant, while still remaining quite powerful. The design for this card is flawless.
blurrymadness
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
"Strictly better" is a plague that spreads between attention whores, the OCD, and the retarded. Just quit it.
Come on people, this IS strictly better than Cancel!
"Strictly better" doesn't mean "strictly more powerful in any given situation", so the actual power of a card depends on the rest of my deck. But if card A suits better for my deck it doesn't mean that card B (that is actually "strictly better" than card A) is not "strictly better" than card A.
I would say something like this: "Dissipate is strictly better than Cancel, but if I play Surgical Extraction, in my deck I would put Cancel instead of Dissipate".
On the card: I've always wondered why they didn't reprint this card before, like in the first Ravnica for counter these annoying Dredge cards... I've just bought a set of Innistrad edition of this card, forgetting for a while that an older version, with a better art (Richard Kane Ferguson, people!)already exists. Shame on me... 5/5
And for the 3CMC counterspell, with Cancel they wanted to set a standard for a "vanilla" counterspell, one that they can reprint without fear in any block or Core Set. This doesn't mean that they couldn't sometimes print strictly better card now and then...
Comments (13)
@A3Kitsune: I play Legacy, so R&D isn't going to change anything by making a three costing counterspell except make it more expensive for me to buy four. I highly doubt WotC thought that counterspell was too overpowered. WotC is just lazy and nerfed counterspell because they wanted to change things up without risking anything.
No, this card is not strictly better than cancel
I really wish people would stop chucking that phrase around. Unless a card is exactly the same with some additional ability that is never a downside, it is not "strictly better".
What happens if you've got a B/U deck that reanimates things from an opponents graveyard? You wouldn't use this, that would be counter-intuitive; you'd use cancels because it makes the spell you countered go where you want it to. The same is true with Hinder. Sure in the situation I described counterspells would be even better, but for arguments sake lets say you can't scrounge up a playset.
Guess I'll be dusting off some Mirage cards... never thought that would happen!
Just like Dissipate isn't strictly better then Cancel if your holding Rise from the Grave!
With the above logic, nothing would be "strictly better" because of some obscene situation or unique deck plan. What people mean is "mostly better", but who the hell cares?
Strictly better's a funny term though. Looming Shade is strictly better than Frozen Shade, but someone on the Necrogen Mist comments had a combo that relied on creatures having 0 power being the only ones that could attack.
So, basically, 'strictly better' can never really be truly applied for the most part, but generally there are a lot of cards - like this - where for the average user you'd prefer this version. We really need a new term for this.
Also, didn't realise this existed before Innistrad. Cool.
Lightning bolt is strictly better than Shock. The reason for this is that short of extremely obscure and esoteric situations, one would almost always prefer to cast the Bolt. The two cards are both red, have equal CMC, and have equal speed. The only difference between the two cards is damage, which Bolt simply does more of. Thus, it's strictly better.
Dissipate however, is not strictly better than Cancel. While the two are comparable, and Dissipate is usually better to prevent your opponent from using Disentomb or something of the sort, that doesn't make it strictly better. That's because there are plenty of reasons to want something in a graveyard as opposed to exiled. For example, if you run Tarmogoyf.
I hope that clears things up. There's a difference between usually better and strictly better.
And as for this card itself, I'm glad it got reprinted. It's a counterspell that's both balanced and elegant, while still remaining quite powerful. The design for this card is flawless.
Just quit it.
Btw, strictly better than Cancel LOL!!
"Strictly better" doesn't mean "strictly more powerful in any given situation", so the actual power of a card depends on the rest of my deck. But if card A suits better for my deck it doesn't mean that card B (that is actually "strictly better" than card A) is not "strictly better" than card A.
I would say something like this: "Dissipate is strictly better than Cancel, but if I play Surgical Extraction, in my deck I would put Cancel instead of Dissipate".
On the card:
I've always wondered why they didn't reprint this card before, like in the first Ravnica for counter these annoying Dredge cards... I've just bought a set of Innistrad edition of this card, forgetting for a while that an older version, with a better art (Richard Kane Ferguson, people!)already exists. Shame on me...
5/5
And for the 3CMC counterspell, with Cancel they wanted to set a standard for a "vanilla" counterspell, one that they can reprint without fear in any block or Core Set. This doesn't mean that they couldn't sometimes print strictly better card now and then...