Would it kill them to make ONE griffin good, just for a change?
Posted By:
Fenix.
(9/18/2013 10:43:58 PM)
I'm not saying that Wizards has to stop printing crappy cards like this every set. Crappy cards serve a purpose. I'm just wondering if they could maybe stop only printing crappy griffins.
Posted By:
yyukichigai
(9/26/2013 4:43:04 AM)
When will players learn that janky sub-par commons will always be printed as fodder for limited and if every card pushed the curve, the game would implode on itself within 6 months and die.
Posted By:
Atali
(9/20/2013 11:13:25 PM)
Poor griffins, they never get good cards, even in a block where they logically should.
Posted By:
Totema
(9/18/2013 10:21:23 PM)
When will Wizards learn that making inefficient creatures with inefficient pumps that only work once per turn will never make a good card? Ever? An inefficient creature with an inefficient pump can be usable if that pump can be used more than once, but "once per turn" is just...so completely useless.
Posted By:
DoragonShinzui
(9/19/2013 6:31:22 AM)
This is better than a Serra Angel because you get +1/+0, and the only tradeoff is that it counts less to your devotion to white, you lose vigilance, and it costs an extra 4 off-color mana per turn. Value!
Posted By:
Lazenca_Seifus
(9/17/2013 3:56:50 PM)
Lazenca this is fundamentally worse than Serra Angel. "the only tradeoff" is spending turn six spending most of your mana (with dual off color symbols) to pump this as well as being susceptible to one mana removal like Shock.
Posted By:
lorendorky
(9/17/2013 11:51:01 PM)
i am lighting a candle now to express my sorrow for how bad this card is...
Posted By:
chainsmoker
(9/18/2013 5:34:14 AM)
Did they go from 3/4 to 3/2 because it's a white griffin?
Posted By:
Mode
(9/21/2013 4:05:44 PM)
Well they've made some decent Pegasus type creatures in this set, fingers and toes crossed for a decent Griffin next set.. if so it'll probably be a rare.. c'Mon Wizards!
Posted By:
TowerDefender
(10/12/2013 4:43:39 AM)