"Gnerdel"... could it be a very, very thinly veiled reference to Grendel, from the epic poem Beowulf? He was sort of like an ogre...
Posted By:
Leshrac_Nightwalker
(5/21/2010 12:17:12 PM)
as was said earlier this was used as a yardstick for all cretures. thus all creatures sucked, such a bad card basicly the only reson to play it is if you own 60 cards
Posted By:
Mindbend
(9/5/2010 2:33:41 PM)
Sucks.
Posted By:
Duskdale_Wurm
(6/6/2010 12:35:36 AM)
awesome card, wish they do make a reprint as it would be awesome to see players take on more cards like this in their decks, not for its BROKENNESS, but for fun and casual play.
Posted By:
KMcombine
(5/12/2010 8:24:23 AM)
I was going to spring for some Hypnotic Specters, but then I saw this beast and had to go red.
Posted By:
Anathame
(10/13/2011 1:27:53 PM)
Half a star for being broken.
Posted By:
dragonking987
(2/21/2011 1:06:17 PM)
Meh, I gave this one 2.5 stars along with scathe zombies just because when I was a kid, most red decks had a couple of these in the deck. They might have been filler even then, but they were important filler. So I have to respect their past, even if in the present they aren't that great.
Posted By:
Quentil
(10/21/2011 11:30:53 PM)
I think this is a little uncalled for, a 2/2 for 3 is not not 1.180 bad. There are lots of 2/2s for 3 with worthless abilities that have mush higher ratings. Maybe he's not a 3 star creature, but i dont think 2 stars would be unreasonable afterall, hill giant is in the same boat as him and he is rated, oh... well I think 1 1/2 stars would be fair!
Posted By:
omni8000
(5/2/2012 2:06:25 PM)
Gnerdel was a tertiary consumer
Posted By:
Arachibutyrophobia
(12/8/2012 11:12:04 PM)
5.0 for flavor text. -4.0 for being a meh card even back when it was printed.
Posted By:
Haplo81
(4/6/2013 1:13:53 PM)