Play on Kjeldoran Royal Guard.
Posted By:
A3Kitsune
(2/14/2010 6:47:28 AM)
Dear White,
Here is your version of Force of Will. Your welcome.
Sincerely,
Alliances
Posted By:
Mudbutt_on
(7/23/2010 12:35:43 PM)
For some reason, the 7 damage prevention to one target in a game of magic just seems ridiculous. I feel like it would be a weaker card if it said "Prevent all damage that would be dealt to creature or player this turn, put a +0/+1 counter on the creature (if applicable) for each damage prevented this way." I mean, obviously, that would be way better, but singular damage increments as high as 7 just leaves more of an impact than "all" damage. The thought that you'd need 7 damage prevented to turn the tide of a war would be ridiculous (your opponent would be aiming to kill your creatures exactly, or near exact damage), but for exiling a white card, this is definitely worth it. That being said, this card looks pretty impressive with a big figure like 7 and it's pretty effective with the pitch cost.
Posted By:
MacBizzle
(8/21/2011 1:45:41 AM)
Obviously no Force of Will, but Force of Will is probably the single most unintentionally important card ever printed in the game. This isn't a bad card in it's own right, 7 damage worth of prevention can really swing something if you use it right.
Posted By:
BegleOne
(10/16/2010 11:13:27 PM)
Try Test of Faith.
Posted By:
mrredhatter
(11/2/2009 7:44:36 AM)
This thing has led to some unusually large white weenies whenever I've seen it. Nothing's as good as Force of Will but this sure beats Bounty of the Hunt by a long shot.
Posted By:
psychichobo
(10/7/2012 7:25:20 AM)
Use in a Doran, the Siege Tower EDH deck to make one of your creatures HUUUUGE.
Posted By:
Lord_Ascapelion
(11/12/2012 10:15:08 AM)
I always thought this dude looked like Robert the Bruce from 'Braveheart'.
Posted By:
JovianHomarid
(5/31/2013 7:33:06 AM)
Its funny how preventing all damage would make the card stronger but yet seem weaker because you are removing that big timmy number 7.
Posted By:
TheWrathofShane
(6/5/2013 1:06:09 AM)