Too slow for constructed and extremely dull. Limited fodder.
Posted By:
kczok
(7/17/2009 1:15:25 AM)
This was wizards answer to the weakness of white in 2010, according to the latest article...
Posted By:
mrnubnub
(7/12/2009 3:52:52 PM)
Way better in limited than I thought it would be. It was never a rock star, but I was almost always happy to have it on the table. Good answer to green fat in a low cost white deck.
Posted By:
ZEvilMustache
(8/16/2009 8:52:40 AM)
A rather weak card. It would be more logical if he at least had trample (its a huge elephant after all)...
Posted By:
Dante80
(9/5/2009 9:16:20 AM)
Common white fat doesn't make any sense to me. It seems out of the color pie.
Posted By:
Zulp
(4/11/2010 3:01:59 PM)
good in limited, but really, really boring. This would never make it into even one of my casual constructed decks...elephants are cool, but LOXODON elephants are way cooler.
Posted By:
Champion_Kitsune
(10/24/2009 11:54:18 AM)
I would give this half a star, but the creature type is too awesome to bare.
Posted By:
Lestat13
(7/11/2009 2:18:29 AM)
I think this creature is excessively boring. Also, why is it an elephant creature like we'd see in our own, real world? What was wrong with the upright, sentient Loxodons? Why couldn't this had been a Loxodon, or some other of their distant brethren? I mean, humanoid Rhinos made a comeback, so why didn't humanoid elephants?
Posted By:
Oleander
(7/12/2009 9:57:45 PM)
He looks so sad.
Posted By:
EpicBroccoli
(12/7/2010 5:20:30 PM)
Or you could, y'know... baneslayer for the same CC?
Posted By:
Anggul
(6/22/2010 1:18:10 AM)