x If you're looking for a specific comment, check the other printings as well.
Player Rating:
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
Community Rating: 0.831 / 5  (299 votes)
The player rating is the overall rating for the card taking into account all player rating votes.

 
Popular Comments
Hide Comments
Only show me comments rated:
 stars.
12345 > >>
"Aven Trooper, we brought home a little brother."
Posted By: Kirbster (10/16/2010 8:34:27 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


I guess holgir found a possible reason why this card's activation cost even includes discarding.
But i still don't get why Wizards did not want to make this card more interesting then if it was intended to find use with Uneath creatures.
Especially when regarding the generous memorable name which mirrors the creature types this card has. and it actually has an interesting flavor, too - it's the only red skeleton yet.

For 3Red this tiny 2/1 body could have easily gained regeneration for Black or just by discarding a card only - and in case they didn't like having regeneration in a monored deck, they could have added "Use this ability only if you control a Swamp."
With both the latter activation cost and a mana cost of 1Red this could even have become an interesting choice for Madness decks. Like this, it's just unplayable junk and drafting material for desperate plans.

See, i actually like the artwork and flavor text of this card and i'd really like playing it if it looked like t... (see all)
Posted By: Mode (11/26/2009 6:16:33 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Viashino Skeleton
Creature - Viashino Skeleton

probably the most noteworthy thing about this card
Posted By: adrian.malacoda (4/10/2012 6:11:52 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Once, on turn 6, I played this, you know just to make sure I could regenerate it. So, when my opponent threw a Lightning Bolt at it, I regenerated it discarding a Baneslayer Angel. Hah, blew up in his face, huh?
Posted By: Gomorrah (2/2/2010 4:37:47 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


The only thing this card has going for it is that its strictly better than shooting yourself in the foot.
Posted By: VoidedNote (8/28/2010 1:13:15 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Shards had a lot of bad commons, but this...wow. I don't even see how it could be used in limited.
Posted By: circu196 (7/13/2010 7:45:32 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Goes well in my tribal shit heap deck.
Play this guy, drop a Coat of Arms, and for tribal synergy, I take a dump on the battlefield. He's instantly a 3/2. You underestimate him!
Posted By: RafiqTheMiststalker (5/12/2010 3:58:59 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Awful card. The only thing memorable about it is that its name is the same as its creature types.
Posted By: Rainyday2012 (7/27/2009 3:12:16 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


"Underneath the Dregscape lay the remains of creatures long extinct from Grixis."
Long extinct? I think I see why...
Posted By: occamsrazorwit (2/25/2012 7:48:02 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


So it's badly overcosted - even in limited, 2/1 isn't good for more than 3 CMC at the most - and on top of that, it's got a horrendously overcosted ability? 2 mana + a discard just to regenerate, which you're going to be doing all the damn time if for some reason you want to keep him around, thanks to his 1-toughness body?

Even in my MtG infancy, when I was just starting the game as Shards was coming in, I saw this and knew it was a pathetically awful card. I can't believe this made it past...well, anywhere. It's a pity, too, because the flavor - hinting at a time long ago when the shards were still connected, etc - is actually interesting.
Posted By: Magnor_Criol (3/26/2011 9:49:53 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0