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: 1.697 / 5  (66 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.
12 >
Why does this card exist?
Posted By: SavageBrain89
------------------------------------------------
Because not every red common can be lightning bolt.
Posted By: desolation_masticore (1/19/2011 4:46:31 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


I have nothing against vanilla creatures. This is just a bad vanilla creature.

@desolation_masticore:
Yes, but red could also have instead gotten its years-overdue 1Red Grizzly Bear.
Black, of all colors, has one now. Giving red—an aggro color—a grizzly bear isn't going to make everyone quit playing and bring about an apocalypse of widespread ruin.
I could easily say the same thing about that Walking Corpse, you know...
Posted By: Blackworm_Bloodworm (9/21/2012 11:27:45 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


It's not a fantastic creature, but it gets the job done for those on a budget.

Don't bash vanillas, guys, they fill their roles well.

It speaks well of Conflux as a set when Hill Giant is the absolute worst rated card in the whole set.
Posted By: NoobOfLore (7/29/2011 9:46:34 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Not that bad, perfect for my friend's minotaur tribal deck. :)
Posted By: kashonismw (10/16/2011 10:48:19 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


It's ok in warrior decks. But that's not saying much.
Posted By: DacenOctavio (12/4/2010 11:23:42 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Hill Giant has no class.

Did I really just make that joke?
Posted By: ZEvilMustache (2/10/2009 7:53:51 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


i wonder whether this is going to replace the classic Hill Giant in later core sets.
Posted By: Mode (1/31/2009 5:19:50 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


No no, this is the wrong card to look at, a 3/3 for 4 is useless, move on...
Posted By: Atrues (4/27/2009 4:16:05 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


The card would be okay if it would've cost 1 colorless less.
Posted By: GoGo26 (8/3/2009 3:27:47 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


It's really not that bad. Cards less than 3 stars are too crap to put in a deck, this is less than 3 stars, but I can think of so many worse cards.
Posted By: onlainari (4/19/2009 10:29:02 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0