Screw whether it's good or not. It's friggin' cool!
Posted By:
Test-Subject_217601
(8/26/2010 9:54:32 PM)
@nubiop No, Sickle Ripper is not strictly better. Strictly means in all cases a card is better. If you were playing against a Warrior-Tribal deck with Coat of Arms, Sickle Ripper would not be better if you wanted to keep your opponents creatures with in a certain toughness range for burn and the lot. However I do agree with you that Sickle Ripper is better in 99,999/100,000 cases.
@Test-Subject_217601 YES
Posted By:
JL_Weber
(3/29/2011 3:11:52 PM)
Actually, a lot of cards are strictly better (ignoring tribals...who the hell would throw this in a snake deck?). Even Rats of Rath. Bad card.
Posted By:
agalloch
(4/17/2010 11:40:44 AM)
This isn't a great card, but the idea is pretty badass ;)
Posted By:
boneclub
(8/5/2010 2:34:19 AM)
Sickle Ripper Is better strictly speaking.
Posted By:
nubiop
(2/9/2009 11:34:36 AM)
Technically, you are incorrect as it has tribal interactions with snakes. Still crap, though.
Posted By:
tamrian
(5/29/2009 5:36:24 PM)
One of my favorite artworks in MTG
Posted By:
Yol0Swaggins
(11/18/2013 1:15:56 PM)
Strictly worse than Spiritmonger.
Posted By:
JunkHarvester
(4/8/2014 11:39:14 AM)