Should cost {U} and say: "Counter target spell unless its controller pays {1} for each Wizard on the battlefield." Or be one mana cheaper.
Belz_
★★★☆☆ (3.9/5.0)(6 votes)
So... it's worse than counterspell AND worse than Cancel ? The only advantage it was over those cards is its splashableness (is that a word ?) Might as well use Rune Snag or Mana Leak.
Tiggurix
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
The thing I find most confusing is the fact that this depends on wizards, not face-down creatures, as I'd expect from a card associated with Ixidor. Well, he's a wizard himself, so I guess it's sorta justified...
Hoonster
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(3 votes)
I can't understand some people . . I know this card is weak but don't demand unreasonable effect . . : counter target spell unless its controller pays for each Wizard on the battlefield It basically becomes a 1 cmc counter spell without any restriction. I'm pretty sure Wizards is not THAT stupid anymore.
Imperialstonedragon
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
hmm okay 3cmc hard counter for a wizard tribal... wait!
rawsugar
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
wizards in play would be a restriction...1u would be ok. or maybe 5u with affinity to wizards.
this is just silly^^
Gabriel422
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
There was a Mana Leak for 2U, which also cantrips if you have a Wizard... (what was its name again?)
Comments (10)
Or be one mana cheaper.
It basically becomes a 1 cmc counter spell without any restriction.
I'm pretty sure Wizards is not THAT stupid anymore.
this is just silly^^
Put that Magic spell on me/ Slap that baby, make him free!