Nonsensical errata... I'm pretty sure that this card was bitchin' back in the day, but for today's environment, that "halve your life" clause puts it right into the suckage zone. Too bad, since the flavor's pretty neat.
Posted By:
Lord_Ascapelion
(2/15/2010 6:21:08 PM)
The person playing the deck of which the card originated from is considered the "owner". (Owning and Controlling a creature are two different things.) Run with Worship and/or Favorable Destiny, or Whispersilk Cloak.
Posted By:
mrredhatter
(10/4/2009 10:43:33 AM)
I get what sooku is saying. Why not just have it say "only personal incarnation's owner may play this ability"?
Posted By:
Maraxas-of-Keld
(1/8/2010 12:57:03 PM)
Actually, this card was never bitchin'. I got double-takes when I played it even back in The Day. I just love the flavor of it, and the original art is uber bad a$$.
Posted By:
reapersaurus
(3/10/2010 2:02:01 PM)
The "Half your life total" is a drawback. Generally, for a card to be worth playing, it NEEDS one of these drawbacks, because generally a drawback is an extra cost to a card that makes it better. Like the recent Death's Shadow and Abyssal Persecutor that have a drawback for an amazing card once they are comboed. Now, if the ability worked the other way, or if it were a two way street, it would be a really cool ability, a cheaper Empyrial Archangel with a less mana restrictive cost but having less hp. But no, there's nothing that really works in this case, just a really expensive creature that used to be good, but has become so dated that it's useless.
Posted By:
OpenSeasonNoobs
(3/17/2010 3:25:51 PM)
The errata of the card is to differentiate between "owner" and "controller". If you "own" the card, you own it IRL, not in the context of the game. If you "control" a creature, you determine its actions in game, and do not necessarly "own" it (Control Magic).
Anyway, I really like this card... it has nice flavor and mechanics, even though it's a bit risky. Not really my style, though.
Posted By:
blugrn1989
(7/27/2010 1:35:50 PM)
@Maraxas
As written, the owner may use the ability even if he doesn't control it. With "only the ownder may activate this ability," you would get a situation where no one can activate it (the owner can't because he's not the controller and can't activate any abilities it may have, and the controller can't because the ability says he can't activate it). The awkward wording stems from the fact "redirect" is no longer used in favor of "deal to.... instead."
Posted By:
longwinded
(9/15/2010 11:08:24 AM)
Any player may activate this ability, but only if he or she owns Personal Incarnation? What the hell does that mean? It made more sense before errata!
Posted By:
Sooku
(7/27/2009 10:43:10 PM)
My first Fattie.
@ Lord_Ascapelion No it wasn't even good back then, I'd play it and my opponent would Terror it and swing for the kill.
Posted By:
Spideredd
(5/28/2011 4:41:28 AM)
Bad ass art, but the card is absolutely terrible.
Posted By:
Nagoragama
(7/17/2011 11:07:22 PM)