I love it for it's usefulness in stopping token armies, but I hate it for the artwork. This balances out to me being sort of neutral.
Posted By:
SocialExperiment
(8/1/2009 1:07:00 AM)
This has got to be the worst looking angel in MTG
Posted By:
LeoKula
(5/25/2010 8:10:29 AM)
*Wagner's 'Flight of the Valkyries' play in my head*
dO_ob
well, she LOOKS like one...sorta...in a weird, buff Norse way
Posted By:
Jokergius
(8/16/2009 6:43:05 PM)
You have absorb 1
why haven't any of these new keywords been used? they're good.
Posted By:
Forgeling
(8/25/2009 11:38:33 AM)
well... the art is good... but erm portrays a manly lady. Which is bad.
Posted By:
Kryptnyt
(3/24/2010 8:36:18 AM)
In this economy I imagine that wizards budget pobably is that tight, either that or they did the art at the last minute before it was printed. Thankfully the card is useful, token decks are going to be near useless and decks with larger creatures are going to lose some fraction of power.
Posted By:
SavageBrain89
(7/11/2009 4:09:12 PM)
that is one crazy pic i like it though it adds difference to the angels
i like this cards abilties to for tyhe same reasons as 2pcsofcandy
sick!!!
Posted By:
lightning19
(7/18/2009 4:34:23 PM)
This card is actually another poster child of creature creep and rarity power creep.
But it's also a relatively fair card with decent art and nice flavour. I'm a sucker for angels so I'd be happy to use it, I'm just not that happy about the creep it represents.
Posted By:
Baconradar
(10/22/2011 5:19:44 AM)
I really wish they'd re-release this with different art so I could play it in a deck.
Posted By:
Ralithune
(2/26/2012 3:25:44 PM)
I always wonder, where are his legs...?
Posted By:
Autor
(5/20/2012 4:43:29 AM)