I think you cant compare both spells as easily as you do. Hurkyls effects all artifacts of the opponent, which can be huge, to open a window, to execute your final move, while a single removal might change nothing against multiple spheres and wires. And hurkyl is blue.

It's playable in monored or red/black (the only colors without answers to enchantments) Blue is better served with sabotage and hurkylls, green with claim/grudge (if red is included), and white has plows for BSC and disenchants for everything else.  The problem with monored - I'm hard pressed to see a situation where shattering spree isn't better considering monored certainly runs either goblin welder or stingscourger or both to handle BSC.  Spree is uncounterable with chalice (the replicated copies anyway), cheaper against spheres, and can sweep several artifacts in one shot.  I suppose the instant factor helps against tangle wire, but at the cost of being uncastable under spheres or locked out at chalice@2, which is a popular play.  Spree also can fire through all counters when hitting vault (with enough copies, you even bypass flusterstorm), whereas shattering blow cannot, and is susceptible to spell snare which is gaining popularity.

It's not a bad card by any means...it's very powerful.  I just think red has better options at the moment when you think of deck construction with the combination of answers (spree/welder/shaman). Also, considering the best shops card to kill with this is golem, lightning bolt or dismember is just as good of an answer.  Only testing will tell, but I'm pressed to see what answer card I already run that i would cut for this.

It's interesting in that it acts as both an answer to Blightsteel and as artifact removal against Workshops. I think it's overpriced though, and I think overall Steel Sabotage is better. Or for the decks wanting an effect like this, Leonin Relic-Warder is another option.

Good find.

This card should see some definite use in hate bear decks in main deck and/or sideboard. Answering tinker and getting the extra versatility of exiling noncreature artifacts will be handy in those decks. In blue decks, the lack of blue in its casting cost will keep it from widespread use, but could still see some application. Fringe playable.

The fact that it is Red and Instant is certainly useful, but I put this about on par with Revoke Existence.  You gain an easier casting cost and speed, but lose the splash hate against Oath.  I guess it basically is a strict upgrade on Shatter, but no one uses that anymore anyway.  I don't think it's as good as Smelt, generally.  Nor as good as Annul or Steel Sabotage.  Still, it does work.

I plan on playing multiple of this card in my bomberman sideboard.  It's really just a slightly better Disenchant, as I've never once used that card to destroy an enchantment.  Nothing to write home about, but it's worth noting.

Or maybe I'll just play Disenchant anyway, because I like the art better.   

I think shattering blow is playable in vintage.As Draven said,it is similar to hurkyl - artifact hate,including tinker golem!

No other creature in Magic literally ends the game, no matter what the situation, when it is not blocked.  It is a one-turn clock.  That is enormous, and I suspect you are underestimating how important that is.  Every other Tinker bot you mentioned might as well read: "Let your opponent untap once or twice more and draw three to five more cards and try to find a way out."  Blightsteel says "come up with an answer before I attack or it's game over."  Emrakul does this too, largely, but Emrakul can't be Tinkered. 

You are too picky about Vintage Mustard and how to cut it, apparently.

More politely you don't ever cast the card from your hand. The casting Cost is basically a joke that you would never use.

RTFC.

No offense.

Actually, I find that pretty insulting.   I can't speak on behalf of the Vintage community, but most of the people on my team are professional adults.   We've all transitioned from college students playing a game to adults who enjoy a periodic hobby much as other adults enjoy other hobbies (such as golfing, etc).   We are not lingering adolescents.  We have good paying jobs with girlfriends, wives, and even families.   Think of myself, Kevin Cron, Mike Bomholt, Steve O'Connell, Roland Chang, Matthieu Durand, etc.   

My problem with binary has less to do with its ambiguity than its sweep.   In my view, it assumes what it concludes.   Peter set up this term as a point of difference for the purposes of applying it to demarcate that point of difference.   It ignores the complex reality of the situation by simplifying in a far too simplistic manner.   It's a false dichotomy that I don't think describes objective reality.  I think it helps Peter organize and think about vintage magic.  But ultimately, I don’t think its accurate.   Peter sets up many such false dichotomies.  For instance, he describes Gifts and Long as the best decks and suggests, or at least strongly implies, that people play other decks when they shouldn’t.   He also categorizes Gifts and Long as flexible and other decks as binary.   The binary term also aggregates a host of variables: mulligan rates, resilience, consistency, and power.   Decks aren’t static.  I’ve seen Gifts hands that fold to Null Rod and Long hands that fold to Force of Will.    How is that any less binary than Ichorid losing because it didn’t get Bazaar?  Peter might answer because those things happen less frequently.   I would contest that assertion.   Ultimately, I think that his lens for examining decks does not hold up to close scrutiny and can be sharply contested.   I think it may serve the practical purpose of helping him select decks that seem to have better tournament performances.  But I wouldn’t attribute any special inherent value to that fact that correlates to his descriptor.    It’s more a matter of historical contingency than objective reality.    I could elaborate on why this is the case, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to this thread.  I will say, however, that his snap judgment of Pact of Negation merely reaffirms my view that Peter, while a smart guy that I respect, suffers somewhat from a failure of imagination.   
In part I was reacting to your comment.  You stated that you thought the card wouldn't see play.   I think it will see play.     My comment was offered to support that contention.   I think the answer to whether it turns vintage on its ear or not will depend upon historical contingency rather than inevitable progress.   It certainly has the potential to do so.   My guess is that it will not.  At least not in the near term.   And even if it does, again, your question begs the question what is meant by "turning vintage on its ear."  Are we talking Mind's Desire or ETW?    I do believe it will see a decent measure of play.   It will also find a home in Legacy and extended.   

They must remind you if you 'forget' to pay the trigger. You can choose not too or be unable too, but you can't forget.

Even in the example above, the combo player is not sunk.  You could use the BBB floating to search for Black Lotus.  Now it puts you behind, because like you said, your opponent gets a free timewalk - and you waste a tutor + lotus simply to not loose the game. 

So it was obviously not great.  And if they counter the Grim or the lotus, then you do loose.

Another interesting option is to run a maindeck stifle.  This way you could Grim for Stifle or Trickbind.  This way you convert the 3UU to U, or 1U uncounterable.  Not terribly bad. 


At the last Myriad, an interesting point about these pact cards was raised (I think by Ray).  Throught mtg history, there have always been choices to make durring your upkeep.  Those cards are almost always "may" abilies, that have a built in punishment if you "Forget" to pay and draw a card.  Kataki clears your artifacts, Oath does nothing, Grunt Dies, Echo creature dies ... etc.  The most difficult upkeep card to judge to date is confidant.  It can be tough on how to judge what happens with a missed confidant - and if the game state is too unrepreable then warnings leading to game losses could occur.  And lets not pretend that this "only happens to bad players."  At this same myriad event, in round 2 Andy Probasco forgot to pay his grunt before he drew his card.  Like a true veteran he just sac'ed and said "oops."  These pact cards have an "Auto-loose" penalty built right in.  So even if you have the mana up, if you draw a card ... are you really going to say "oops, lets go to game 2."

I think my response is there is no question of clear intent to opt "not to loose."  Let's take kataki as an example.  Obviously seeing your next card can influence what you pay for and choose not to pay for, and perhapse what mana you spend to pay for things.  Even with Grunt, knowing that your top card is or ist not recoup or yawg will change how you pay for your Grunt or if you pay at all.  In this case, its hard to argue that knowing the top card of your library will ... influence your decission to loose the game before you even draw said card. 

On the flip side, if you attack me for lethal damage, and I don't block effeciently (and then clearly say "These are my blockers").  I can't use this Intent not to loose plea here. 

Following these two guidelines has led me to my current 'policy' when it comes to Forcing.  While I probably Force Lotus more than is usual, I rarely regret it; hands are kept on the strength of the best card in the game.

Your card is elegant in its simplicity and possibly even versatility.  By all means if you're happy with it, go for it.  But for my money I could never bring myself to play it as a storm hoser because it still suffers from the 'Stifle' flaw.  I tried to avoid that with my version by making it virtually uncounterable and cyclable.  Isn't Orim's Chant already a white storm hoser superior to yours?

As far as the 4 blasts go... they actually are in line with the originals.

Corpse Splicer
1BB
Creature -- Zombie Wizard
2/1
BB, T: Exchange target creature an opponent controls for target creature card in that player's graveyard. Play this only when you could play a sorcery.
The undead's birthcry drowned out the wailing of its dying donor.

Black Elemental Blast
 
Instant
Counter target white spell or destroy target white permanent.

White Elemental Blast
 
Instant
Counter target black spell or destroy target black permanent.

---

Dark Elemental Blast
 
Instant
Counter target white spell or destroy target white permanent.

Holy Elemental Blast
 
Instant
Counter target black spell or destroy target black permanent.

I have yet to come up with flavor text but I think it would interesting if Wizards were to print these since they color shifted a few spells in the last set.

Uncommon or rare, depending on how ridiculous it proves in Limited.

I think you should keep it simple. You don't need to get clever with anti-discard clauses and the like, all you need is W for gain 2 life with Storm. That does what you need it to do without junking up the card with unnecessary text.

OMG... I wasn't actually suggesting THOSE cards. Simply the theory that it would not be difficult to come up with cards that could turn the tables on fully powered decks. If that wasn't clear, it should be now.

edit: It's kind of the "If you build it, they will come" mentality. There are so many people that play Magic, that don't play Vintage. For the most part, they don't play because it's expensive to enter, and Wizards doesn't support it. The set of people that don't play because it's "not fun" exists as well.

If Wizards DID produce this set, that would count as supporting it. The cost of entry would absolutely crash as well, assuming (which I am!) that the set allows for multiple Tier 1 viabilities to new entrants into Vintage. Being able to compete with fully powered decks would be exciting; defeating Mr. Power 9 with a small priced deck has its own satisfaction, i.e. fun, for people that weren't interested in T1 before. Those are three roadblocks to full viability, and all have been manadrained... Err, countered.

Think outside the box for a moment. Don't focus on the cards I threw out there, as they weren't meant to represent concrete ideas, just the theory. Don't think about a set that makes equivalent cards to what we have now, as that would (as previously suggested) tank the collectibility. As mentioned, a 3R Wheel of Fortune does NOT make anyone want to buy 'Ancient Archive'. Think about a set that allows someone with limited funds to enter the Vintage scene with punitive answers to Lotus, Will, A. Recall etc., and defeat those decks using the new cards (whatever they might be). I think that would be exciting.

Thanks for reading!

2.   If I understand correctly, the theory behind the original Long.dec was that you have more broken cards than your opponent, therefore have a better chance of winning.  This of course is merely theoretical.  It obviously depends on what build you are using and which deck you are against, but in general, this is taking that philosophy to the extreme.