Shock

Instant

This deals 2 damage to any target (creature, player, planeswalker or battle).

Legality

Format	Legality
1v1 Commander	Legal
Alchemy	Legal
Archenemy	Legal
Arena	Legal
Block Constructed	Legal
Canadian Highlander	Legal
Casual	Legal
Commander / EDH	Legal
Commander: Rule 0	Legal
Custom	Legal
Duel Commander	Legal
Gladiator	Legal
Highlander	Legal
Historic	Legal
Historic Brawl	Legal
Legacy	Legal
Leviathan	Legal
Limited	Legal
Modern	Legal
Modern Beyond Horizons	Legal
Oathbreaker	Legal
Pauper	Legal
Pauper Duel Commander	Legal
Pauper EDH	Legal
Pioneer	Legal
Planar Constructed	Legal
Planechase	Legal
Pre-release	Legal
Premodern	Legal
Quest Magic	Legal
Standard	Legal
Standard Brawl	Legal
Tiny Leaders	Legal
Vanguard	Legal
Vintage	Legal

Discussion (42)

VladMarkov on First

2 weeks ago

I reckon, what the deck really needs, is lots of cheap spells that can be cast on every player's turn, to get the most value out of the flurry mechanic. The game plan should be to cast Shiko and Narset, Unified on turn 4, prepare the board beforehand, and then spam small, damage-dealing spells that can easily be brought back with tricks like Underworld BreachGC, Lier, Disciple of the Drowned, or by recasting copies with Narset, Enlightened Exile. You could then replace draw-discard effects with more "pure" card draw options like Treasure Cruise (if you have a lot of cards in your graveyard), Quick Study or flexible draw like Flame of Anor. The main gameplay should revolve around cheap, repeatable spells, but there can also be some utility from the Magecraft mechanic. Most importantly, the deck should keep continuous pressure on opponents by dealing large amounts of damage through copying small spells.

Must have: Path to Exile, Cyclonic RiftGC

Useful: Cori Mountain Stalwart, Devoted Duelist, Monk of the Open Hand, Ashling, Flame Dancer, Jori En, Ruin Diver, Ledger Shredder, Smoldering Egg  ^Flip, Burst Lightning, Electrolyze, Virtue of Courage, Fire / Ice, Galvanic Blast, Heartflame Duelist, Ionize, Lightning Bolt, Lightning Helix, Lightning Strike, Magma Jet, Parch, Play with Fire, Punishing Fire, Risk Factor, Sacred Fire, Searing Spear, Shock, Skullcrack, Thunderbolt, Wild Slash

Possible: Taigam, Master Opportunist, Breeches, the Blastmaker, Gale, Waterdeep Prodigy, Rammas Echor, Ancient Shield, Storm of Saruman, Turn / Burn, Price of Progress, Finale of Promise, Increasing Vengeance, Frolicking Familiar, Molten Influence, Slaying Fire, Wizard's Lightning,

hyalopterouslemur on Ziatora, abusing dinosaurs Help!

1 month ago

Have you thought about Greater Good for a card draw effect? Disciple of Bolas can also work. So there are a few options for card draw.

On the mana front, I'd add in Nature's Lore and Skyshroud Claim. Don't know what I'd take out, though.

I would suggest getting rid of the reveal lands, though. Just replace them with the Blood Crypt cycle of lands, a.k.a. shocks (because they Shock you), if you have them. If not, maybe the Sulfurous Springs cycle of lands, called pain lands.

Sliverguy420 on How Can Mono-Colored Cards be …

1 month ago

plakjekaas "That's the topic of discussion yes, that's exactly the question that was asked in the original post, with given examples where exactly that is the case, and if there were any rule behind it. It was not magwaaf who said that, it was DemonDragonJ."

i never implied magwaaf said that, and what you quoted just now was entirely different.

i literally did not "deny the entire premise of the post". certainly not to "spite" anyone. i actually AGREED with the post by saying that multicolored cards are in fact usually stronger than monocolored counterparts.

the one derailing and not contributing is in fact you. saying that "af is stronger than rt because of power creep" does not answer why Thought Collapse is stronger than Psychic Strike you derailed, not me. you got off topic, not me.

Shock and Lightning Bolt do not have the same effect. the effects are not equal. i know what an effect is. been playing this game over 20 years, most of those years competitively. 2 is not the same as 3. you are factually, mathematically, and provably wrong. it is not the same effect no matter how you spin it.

you don't even know the definition of ad hominem. i've never once attacked any person here. i've argued against your logic. that is, by definition, not ad hominem.

this whole post is a trivial nitpick anyway because at the end of the day it doesn't matter if sometimes a monocolored card is stronger than a multicolored card with a SIMILAR effect. OP is constantly making these posts every time some minor thing doesn't go his way in this game.

plakjekaas on How Can Mono-Colored Cards be …

1 month ago

I'll admit I misinterpreted the first mention of Aurelia's Fury. However, Sliverguy420 you have just been correcting and fighting people in this thread. You called me out on my mistake, now let me return the favor:

"i never said magwaaf said anything."

"magwaaf wrong about what exactly? are you saying wotc deliberately did the opposite here, and that monocolored cards are more often stronger than their multicolored counterparts?"

Yes, you "technically" didn't say he said it, but you were asking. I answered you. Then:

"Thought Collapse and Psychic Strike do NOT in fact have the same effect. thats the "whole effing point". one mills 2, the other mills 3. not the same effect."

While the actual question was:

"What does everyone else say, about this? Why are some mono-colored cards more powerful than are multi-colored cards that are very similar?"

You suddenly denied the entire premise of the post just to spite me. That's not contributing, that's derailing. My argument about Aurelia's Fury was that they're not very similar. You start arguing that "very similar" is not exactly the same. That's not gathering or sharing any insight in the discussion at hand. You lose yourself in semantics to feel better about yourself correcting someone online on the Internet. And you dig your heels in the sand when someone else calls you out on it. I thought about making the point of your posts not contributing to the original question in my previous post, but someone beat me to it.

The exact same card with a different name you tried to pass on as the only true meaning of same, which only works for cards, not effects, has its own name. A functional reprint. That's the term to use when discussing cards that are the same, except for the name. They have no place in a discussion about similar cards with different measurements of power, because by definition they're the same in every way, and there is no difference in power.

Effects in Magic are things that happen as the result of a spell or ability. Countering a spell is an effect. Making a player mill cards is an effect. Dealing damage is an effect. Shock and Lightning Bolt both have the same effect, where one of the cards is more powerful than the other. Because they're both monocolored, I've not used the example in this topic. They make my powercreep argument a bit weaker as well. But the thing is: when somebody would claim they're the same card, they would obviously be wrong. But stating: these are not the same card, 2 damage is not 3 damage, you can't compare them, while no lies in the words, is also obviously wrong. Lightning Bolt is said to be "strictly better" than Shock. The same mana cost, card types, same effect, but one with higher numbers.

If Psychic Strike would also cost {1}{U}{U}, we could just say Thought Collapse is strictly better. The discussion would end there, comparison easily handled. Because the mana cost is actually different, you could question if the mana cost causes the difference. That's what OP did, thinking that was the only difference between the cards. Limited environments, rarity and powercreep are all contributing to how strong a card could be, and could explain the mentioned deviation from the expected trend.

Saying similar cards are not exactly the same, does not explain anything about that. Asking if fellow forum user is saying [topic of discussion] is actually the case, does not explain. Denying to derail the discussion after not trying to contribute to the topic and being called out on it, does not help OP's insight to the case. Deflecting that the one you're fighting about it is now also derailing the topic, does not help.

That's what I think it's wrong about your presence in this topic, the ad hominem nature of every post you make, and whenever you're pointed to that, trying to cover it up with more of the same, unwilling to change your own perspective, but expecting us all to join yours. Seems I'm not the only one.

Poly_raptor on Harry Potter - Universes beyond

2 months ago

I like it but think thats quite expensive for essentially a Shock & a tapper. I think Stupefy could just be:

Stupefy {U}

Instant

Tap target creature an opponent controls and put a stun counter on it.

Works flavourfuly as Stupify, considering they learn it in the fourth book, so the fact it would be quite cheap in terms of mana works well. I don’t think would ever kill anyone. A spell that could be red might be Expulso, as this creates an explosion

SaberTech on Why Does High Fae Trickster …

3 months ago

I think that a potential answer to your question regarding comparative mana costs is that better abilities on a creature are only relevant if that creature stays on the board. High Fae Tricker's 2 toughness is a pretty serious detriment on a four mana creature. It means that the Trickster dies to something as simple and cheap as a Shock and an opponent can trade a much cheaper creature in combat for it. In a lot of situations you won't be playing the Trickster on curve on turn four because you will want to cast it when you also have protection available. The one pip of blue mana in its cost at least makes it easier to also have blue mana available for some sort of counterspell.

In comparison, Yeva is able to take a Lightning Bolt and survive, which is a pretty important baseline. You can also cast her during combat as a surprise blocker that can kill a 3/3 or 3/4 and still stick around. That means that she can effectively put you up one card on your opponent on curve just on her own while at best the Trickster can come down and only survive blocking against a 1 power creature.

The Trickster does have flying, which in some clogged board states could make it a more effective attacker than Yeva, but even a really mana-inefficient 2/1 flying creature for three mana can "trade up" mana-wise against it in combat.

As for both the Trickster and Yeva's abilities to give other cards flash, that's only relevant if you have cards that benefit from that in hand. At its worst, the ability does nothing for you that can change the game state. At its best it's a moderate advantage that offers some room to surprise and outplay your opponent. Even then though, it is an ability that is dependent on other cards in your hand to get you any value. The Trickster may have the better ability but Yeva can do more for you on its own. Two pips of green mana on a green creature that can function as a psuedo-kill spell is pretty reasonable to expect given that you would normally have to use at least one green mana while casting a creature and another green mana while casting a fight spell to get a similar effect.

DungeonMimic1993 on Hey Jude

4 months ago

Thank you for the feed back DreadKhan, it reminded me that I haven't edited my digital version of this deck even though I changed my physical. I've updated the above deck to match my real deck and added some of your suggestions. First of all, You were 100% right about mana being a struggle and Judith being a kill on sight. I really haven't found any ramp in rakdos so thanks for the lands, i can see them building up fast. I also added Gadrak, the Crown-Scourge to produce mana off killing creatures. he's not very fast for mana but he is a good cheep blocker too.

Aetherflux Reservoir is definitely on my to-buy-list, but when i bought this deck I opted for the Bolas's Citadel instead.

I'll probably hold off adding Sensei's Divining Top because one; It's a bit out of my budget, and two; personally, I find combo wins to be a kind of disappointing way to end a game - at lest not as exciting as dealing 20 damage to everything with starstorm. But if you are someone who likes combos that is a very solid one to add for sure.

Shock for Flare is a pretty close swap, Flare costing more mana and doing less lifelink damage, but keeping cards in your hand. Once i add the charge up lands a two mana difference won't be as big as it is currently so i think that will make it worth it to replace.

Rite of the Raging Storm is going in for sure. Because the creatures will die at the end of the turn they will trigger cards like Deathbringer Thoctar , Massacre Wurm, or any other similar creature in the deck making it a must have. Not a card i would have found otherwise so thank you so much for suggesting it.

I could add Kothophed, Soul Hoarder so i have more a chance at drawing one, but Harvester of Souls does the same minus taking lots of damage making it a better option for me.

Because most of the card in here say "each" i can almost always get around Hexproof, Shroud, and Ward, and I have cards like Burn from Within to get around indestructible and Fanged Flames to get through protection so there hasn't been a time yet were there was something i couldn't kill, but you never know when your wubrg friend is going to play Progenitus so not a bad card to put in there if you come across something really hard to deal with often.

I really appreciate your feed back, I just played this deck yesterday and in a 6 player game, and came very close to a win if i had exactly 2 more mana or one more card draw, so everything you recommended is on point with what this deck needs.

SteelSentry on Which is More Important: Total …

4 months ago

Some of those are also relative because sometimes being one bigger than the other is a much bigger deal than just one. I can tell you from Standard that I can remember way more Lightning Strikes being cast than Shocks ever were unless you were in specifically a Prowess-style deck; thrown at a player, 2 and 3 damage is the difference between a playset doing 8 and 12, and 2 toughness and 3 toughness are important breakpoints in creature design for many reasons, the Bolt test being one of them.

Shared Summons is certainly a powerful card, especially in combo decks, but Eladamri's Call letting you find the right creature and casting it the same turn makes it better in most cases than getting two creatures and then dying to some artifact or enchantment you didn't have the mana to remove with Reclamation Sage which means I prefer it in most cases.

Lightning Angel is actually a good example of 3 vs 4. Mantis Rider is good, and also, relevantly, a Human, but it dies to Bolt or a 1/1 plus a Shock, and anything it kills it trades with. In a mirror match, the Angel can block other Angels all day, dodges Bolt, and unless you're playing a cube (Flame Slash and Flametongue Kavu are popular includes) or a format that has playable expensive red removal like Witchstalker Frenzy, a red deck may struggle to kill it 1-for-1.

With the draw spells, this is a very common theory in Yu-Gi-Oh actually, but a card going +1 like Quick Study is very powerful. More cards is always better, as is mana-to-card ratio, but little burst draw or cantrips usually live and die on their efficiency, and Quick Study being the cheapest unconditional way outside power to go card positive makes it incredibly noteworthy. Like the tutor argument, you might prefer card filtering cantrips that leave you neutral because the right card is more important than more cards, but it depends on why you're putting the spell there in the first place.

It's a very interesting topic that is often ignored in Commander due to the nature of the format, but the idea that "1 isn't always 1" is what really makes card analysis for 60 and 40 card formats special to me.