Noooooo! How dare you all tease him with your cruel words >:'(
He's just trying to get by...
I'm gonna play him anyway, screw you all *runs off crying*
Posted By:
Stray_Dog
(12/29/2010 9:59:09 PM)
I give it 2 stars for being a functional copy of hill giant, a baseline card. I give it -1 star for being printed in the same set as lord of shaterskull p a s s. Geese Wizards, you don't have to insult us...
Posted By:
Cardcypher42
(4/19/2010 2:10:18 AM)
Ugh, Canyon Minotaur all over again. Why must R be saddled with these boring creatures?
Posted By:
Pramxnim
(4/15/2010 11:56:36 PM)
wizards stop printing these cards...ffs
Posted By:
OutlawD1
(4/20/2010 3:25:42 PM)
It's even more useless than Hill Giant thanks to the terrible creature type.
Posted By:
Ameisenmeister
(5/1/2010 3:32:05 AM)
3/3 for 4. Unimpressive, but ok. I'd rather have good ol' Hill Giant.
Posted By:
Dragon23
(11/29/2010 7:48:15 AM)
I do wish they'd make some interesting and useful red common creatures that are larger than a Goblin and not as worthless as a Hill Giant or its clones.
An example of how to do this half-way right is that new 3/3 for 3R from Scars of Mirrodon that has Metalcraft that grants it +3/+3 and Haste. Okay, sure, it's still not Constructed worthy, but at least it DOES something interesting, instead of this Hill Giant retread.
Posted By:
Radagast
(12/17/2010 11:46:01 AM)
I understand the need to print vanilla creatures. They have their place in Magic. I just wish they would at least print them in useful creature types.
... though I guess in red, Hill Giant would be about as close as they could come to a useful creature type for a 3/3.
Posted By:
ScissorsLizard
(11/19/2012 7:07:12 PM)
.5/5
Its an option in limited, and unplayable in constructed.
Posted By:
TheWrathofShane
(12/8/2012 8:39:26 PM)
The reason they never die is because they are never played.
Posted By:
Moxxy
(1/5/2013 10:42:59 PM)