He is an uncommon because all the artifacts for the set are uncommons. As a common there would be too many of him and artifacts would be nill. And he is mostly better than the piker anyway.
Posted By:
jewification
(7/7/2012 8:15:33 AM)
This at common would have made the uncommon artifacts in the set much less attractive, so a reprinting to change its rarity was necessary. Please stop giving your terrible opinions about how this was 'wrong' or 'bad.'
Posted By:
myztikrice
(8/8/2012 1:15:00 AM)
@Lotsofpoopy
no one even noticed you making a serious and constructive comment.
@TheWrathofShane
Ever consider that your church is the problem?
Posted By:
CogMonocle
(6/30/2013 4:05:14 PM)
I feel that this is solid, cheap artifact destruction on a decently-powered card for its mana cost. Try running it in a Blood Artist deck. Swing for 2, sac for (R) to melt an artifact, opponent loses 1 life, you gain 1. Not a bad little burst of fun.
Posted By:
Augthail
(10/10/2012 11:20:33 AM)
From Mark Rosewater: "There are fewer artifacts in a core set than most expert expansion sets (including Dark Ascension, where Torch Fiend was first printed) and they tend to appear at slightly higher rarities. As such, we shifted up the rarity of some of our artifact destruction.
Also, cards that sit on the board that can sacrifice themselves for spell effects add some board complexity and we try to be extra vigilant about New World Order in core sets."
Posted By:
DoubleTarget
(7/15/2012 9:51:26 PM)
This is a solid card, and reprinting it helps reinforce something that people have been arguing for years but Magic simply had not caught up with.
Red artifact removal needed to be cheaper.
Shatter was a spell that was thought to be good enough, and hearth kami was supposed to keep us happy. Ingot chewer proved that 
to break an artifact at sorcery speed wasn't overpowered (even with a potential creature stapled on for a higher cost), and after waiting for quite some time we finally have Smelt, a single mana at instant speed to destroy an artifact.
While I think it would still be fair without the mana cost to activate its ability, Magic is a game of gradual change. Testing how far this card goes before making Red artifact removal any stronger is a prudent move, and while Smelt makes me rather happy, this card at least says that magic is still moving in the right direction.
Posted By:
Asmodi0000
(7/15/2012 7:59:03 PM)
@TheWrathofShane
Uhhhhhh....your church was, at least on some level, ok with MtG while it was rife with DEMONS...yet they freak out when the creature type 'Devil' appears on a card?
I don't get it.
Regardless, I like this creature. Artifact removal, while with a cost and not triggered, on a 2cmc 2/1 is playable. Not what I'd call 'maindeckable' but certainly sideboard-worthy.
Posted By:
ThinkOriginal
(9/17/2012 2:10:26 PM)
2/1 for 2 is playable. Conditional artifact hate is nothing to sneeze at. Uncommon?
Posted By:
ZEvilMustache
(7/6/2012 5:47:17 PM)
Uhhhhh
Why is this rated 1.6?
Posted By:
ThisisSakon
(7/5/2012 8:42:11 PM)
@TimmyForever
That is how a lot of people feel about you.
Posted By:
Cazaric
(7/14/2012 4:53:40 AM)