MTG Salvation

3BB Sorcery
Choose one: destroy all dragon creatures; destroy all non-dragon creatures

Thoughts? Day of Judgement at five still seems pretty good and better since its black, and if you're running Kokusho and other dragons this could be pretty nuts with them. Probably not good enough for the smaller cubes, but could find a spot in the mid-sized to larger ones.

unless you are abusing the second part, card is clearly below par for cube sweepers.
Not close to enough dragons in cube to abuse the second part

I don't think a 5cc generic wrath makes the cut. Maybe in enormous cubes that push MBC.

Really don't need this card at 450.

Would I cube a white Day of Judgment for 5 mana? Hell no! A black Day of Judgment for 5 mana? Absolutely! Not in a smaller cube, but even in a medium-sized cube, the pickings for black mass removal become pretty slim. There are only two good ones, Damnation and Toxic Deluge, so if you want to support black control decks that don't need to also play white (usually Dimir or Grixis), then a third Wrath effect is needed. And even if 5 mana isn't great, this card is still the third best option. And as Rout shows, 5 mana may not be optimal for a Wrath, but it is still playable. I would have run Extinguish All Hope if it would have costed 1 less, so I am surely including Crux of Fate.

(Oh, and I am still running Kokusho, the Evening Star and Broodmate Dragon, so there is a cool achievement to unlock.)

I may try this as a budget replacement for Damnation over Black Sun's Zenith.

I'm torn on this card. I really want another playable black wrath, but I'm not sure this is it. I'm not even sure if this is better than Black Sun's Zenith.

I ran Black Sun's Zenith for a year or two, then cut it because it became too expensive if I wanted a full-blown Wrath. It was almost never cast for 1BB, so the main advantage that it has over Crux is the 2BB mode. The other advantage that it has over Crux is the ability to scale it in a way that leaves some (then small) creatures on your side while taking out (most of) the opponent's side. Overall, Zenith is probably better when the opposing creatures are small (or at least smaller than yours), while Crux is better against decks that run several 4+ toughness creatures. In a control deck, I prefer a reliable Wrath for 5 so that I can deal with all kinds of threats.

I guess the question is this better than your average Black Sun's Zenith for 3 in larger cubes. Im not sure. I have cast Black Sun multiple times before.

Quote from Torggo »

I guess the question is this better than your average Black Sun's Zenith for 3 in larger cubes. Im not sure. I have cast Black Sun multiple times before.

No, the question when comparing this to BSZ is whether the fact that it kills everything is worth losing the fact that you can cast BSZ for 3 or 4 mana especially against aggro. And I think it's pretty clearly not.

I think BSZ is better than this, and I'm fine with making mass removal a little more sparse than most people like. I'm fine with Toxic Deluge and Damnation at 450. For 720, a 3rd might be nice, but I'd rather play BSZ for the versatility and being able to play it or 2BB.

Yeah, I can see this one being played in something big like Star Slayer's 600 list, but not in anything smaller like mine.

Nice card really, but not for (most) cubes.

After having played BSZ in my own cube for a time, I'm thinking I'd rather have this. At 550, this could easily stand a chance at finding a home. It's not Damnation, but it's definitely not terrible. The dragon clause is probably a little too late for any value, however. Even at 550, I'm pretty sure I'm only running one dragon.

I like BSZ more.

Quote from wtwlf123 »

I like BSZ more.

Why? Almost every time I played BSZ I wanted it to simply be -X/-X instead of counters. It being counters was ultimately why it got the axe. What makes BSZ better than this? I may actually think about putting BSZ back in for a run to determine if we really need another black Wrath variant.

Quote from calibretto »

Quote from wtwlf123 »

I like BSZ more.

Why? Almost every time I played BSZ I wanted to to simply be -X/-X instead of counters. It being counters was ultimately why it got the axe. What makes BSZ better than this? I may actually think about putting BSZ back in for a run to determine if we really need another black Wrath variant.

Because you can cast on on turn 4 or even 3. Control (which is the archetype that most wants wraths) is at its worst against aggro, and wraths are one of its best tools for stabilizing. Giving your opponents entire team -2/-2 forever is usually going to be more than enough to stabilize even if it doesn't kill all their dudes. Sometimes -1/-1 will be enough. However, being forced to wait till 5 mana no matter what is horrendous against aggro.

What makes BSZ better than this?

It doesn't cost 5 mana. You can nuke a pair of early beaters for 3 mana, or pull a board wipe effect for 4 mana. It also has the ability to be 1-sided, as I can leave a body behind after it resolves to continue to apply at least some pressure.

All fair points. I might try to find a way to sneak BSZ back in. There are a few black cards on the block so maybe BSZ would see play a little more than one of them.

I sort of view this as a budget alternative to Damnation, but I also feel like Mutilate is better at that job than Crux of Fate is. Maybe at 720, or more likely 810. If anyone manages to test it they have to let us know how it goes.

BSZ will kill regenerators also. Thrun, the Last Troll is a thorn in the side of a lot of decks.

Quote from Little_Kicky_Jesus »

I sort of view this as a budget alternative to Damnation, but I also feel like Mutilate is better at that job than Crux of Fate is. Maybe at 720, or more likely 810. If anyone manages to test it they have to let us know how it goes.

I replaced Mutilate with BSZ for that job some time ago. The problem with Mutilate is that it requires a lot of Swamps to be effective, so it almost requires you to be mono black to run it. Even in a fairly black heavy Rakdos deck you might only be running 10 or so swamps once you add some non-basics, much less Grixis control that could really use a board wipe but can't get much use out of Mutilate. BSZ might be double black, but that's a much looser requirement than a mana base full of swamps, so it can go into a lot more decks than Mutilate.

Back to Crux of Fate, I appreciate the comparisons with BSZ, there were some very good points made about the importance of being able to cast it for 3 or 4 mana in the aggro matchup so BSZ probably is the better board wipe. I also don't think this is better than Toxic Deluge, or Living Death, so I'll probably be passing on Crux of Fate.

At 720+ I'll see the need for the 3rd wrath after Damnation, Toxic Deluge, and the Zenith. In anything below that, I don't think it matters.

what number of white wrath effects do people find effective at 360? would you want to run the same amount in black if you had equally efficient options?

I currently run 3 in white. I'd probably play a third black one of we got one as efficient as Damnation/Deluge.

I definitely like Crux of Fate more than Black Sun's Zenith. Zenith is better against 1/3 of the decks (aggro), while Crux is better against 2/3 of the decks (midrange, control, ramp, reanimator). Zenith is more like a scalable Infest/Pyroclasm. It can work as a Wrath, but only at a horrible cost. Having to pay 8 mana to deal with a single Titan or Sphinx sucks. And it is pretty bad against most fatties that got reanimated or ramped out early. Even against many midrange beaters, it becomes really costly. And it is only asymmetrical when your creatures are bigger than your opponent's, which will be mostly the case against aggro. A true Wrath should be more than just an anti-aggro card though.

Crux is the third best black Wrath and while it is a bit disappointing that black has to pay 1 more for its Day of Judgment than white, Crux is still playable far before reaching 720 cards.