At least the art looks alright... a bit wasted on this card though. At some point you have to wonder if the flavor of this card is worth it--right before you palm yourself in the forehead for asking yourself such a silly question (no, of course it's not worth it).
Posted By:
Cardcypher42
(4/18/2010 5:33:18 PM)
well i get the idea yes sea creatures need water to attack but then wizards should make it for all water-based creatures which would probably suck but why still sticking to this idea and of all monsters to the one of the most flavorfull ones? some crappy eels, octopi, merfolk etc dont neew H2O to attack but serpents do? i dont rly get it...
Posted By:
Imperialstonedragon
(3/24/2011 1:20:30 PM)
@imperialstonedragon: Big sea creatures need deep water to move, while the smaller creatures can swim in shallows, or up streams/irrigation channels/etc. Also, both eels and octopi can move about on land, as can merfolk in at least some of Magic's settings.
Posted By:
A3Kitsune
(10/27/2011 9:23:03 PM)
Hmmmm.....no. I'll stick with Stormtide Leviathan.
Posted By:
divine_exodus
(11/17/2010 2:38:12 PM)
This art isn't even nice. This guy's just a douche.
Posted By:
RafiqTheMiststalker
(4/22/2010 7:58:32 PM)
Wizards HATE blue.......
Posted By:
nevenshinko
(6/5/2012 4:30:14 AM)
This guy could be worse...
Posted By:
Anubisisking
(1/31/2011 2:35:04 PM)
Atually a bit better than it seems. It's a 6/6 blocker, which means that barely anything gets through it, and if you're playing against a blue deck, it becomes an insane beater.
Posted By:
Fanaticmogg
(2/3/2012 10:15:22 AM)
@GruesomeGoo
Hey, it was actually pretty solid at one time. There was once a day where I looked from Sea Monster to Sea serpent and just nodded my head in approval.
Posted By:
Kryptnyt
(3/26/2012 9:45:38 PM)
i hate vanilla cards with disadvantages.
Posted By:
O0oze
(6/20/2013 1:27:36 AM)