3.5/5 because banding with high toughness can be kind of powerful in groups. It's overcosted, true, but if you're playing a banding deck these days it's fairly obvious it's only going to be seeing casual play. I'm tempted to put a banding deck together though, just to take to the game store and confuse all the people who have never heard of it.
Posted By:
Ryjhan
(10/10/2012 6:40:45 AM)
@The_Trendkill: In what way is the name strange? A phalanx is simply a military formation, and the soldiers which constitute it are obviously from Kjeldor, thus they are a "Kjeldoran Phalanx". Simple, really.
Posted By:
Tiggurix
(10/29/2010 1:46:18 PM)
I love me some banding, but creatures with banding were almost all over costed if they were larger than 1/1
Posted By:
Shoe2
(1/27/2012 9:41:21 AM)
I've put down some serious casual beats with this guy. 4/5 for nostalgia and the art.
Posted By:
EMG81
(10/5/2012 4:57:25 PM)
Banding is great with first strike, and it's great with huge tougness. Having both, though, is probably unnecessary, and has unfortunately warranted a huge mana cost. He's cool, but six mana is really just too much.
Posted By:
Kirbster
(2/5/2013 5:00:52 PM)
to expensive.
Posted By:
mrredhatter
(10/4/2009 9:32:23 AM)
I like the facist flavor text.
Posted By:
tavaritz
(5/26/2011 1:38:58 AM)
The first strike is big with banders
Posted By:
FragNutMK1
(12/17/2009 8:42:44 AM)
Not that I care about the card at all, but it gets a 3/5 from me just for having one of the strangest names of all the cards in Magic. It's up there with Hyalopterous Lemure (coincidentally, also from Ice Age).
Posted By:
The_Trendkill
(6/23/2010 6:29:32 PM)
I resent this card, deeply, for taking up multiple rare slots in multiple packs that I opened. So expensive. So not worth it.
Posted By:
Hanksingle
(8/25/2011 2:41:47 PM)