Just look at Enormous Baloth.
Posted By:
Duskdale_Wurm
(6/8/2010 11:15:24 PM)
The Ice Age version had iconic art. Which I have on a t-shirt. The generic art on this one just shows up the innate blandness of the card.
Glad to see WotC printing common and uncommon green biggies (wurms no less!) with trample in the newer core sets.
Posted By:
M@tttyZ
(10/26/2010 3:20:32 AM)
When i first started playing i thought this card was great. It was the biggest creature i owned and i didn't even bother looking at the mana cost.
A nostalgic card, but that's pretty much all it has going for it.
Posted By:
Lord_of_Omnipotence
(1/26/2011 8:47:44 PM)
At least the artwork makes this look cool!
Posted By:
dberry02
(8/30/2010 2:28:20 AM)
Consider Whiptail Wurm instead.
Posted By:
AXER
(1/28/2010 3:01:27 AM)
A classic wurm from when I first started playing, I wish it was playable
Posted By:
Wizard-of-the-Toast
(7/24/2010 1:27:44 AM)
Poor Scaled Wurm, time has not treated you well buddy. Sadly, despite having several better cards, I always toss this guy into every green deck I make, partially for nostalgia and partially because a 7/6 vanilla creature with a completely unsupported creature type is still awesome in my books, I mean look at him, he just wants to be loved. Can't you give a card from way back in Ice Age a break?
Posted By:
Test-Subject_217601
(8/15/2010 1:49:54 PM)
If only you'd been a slagwurm...
Posted By:
KikiJikiTiki
(1/29/2011 12:58:23 PM)
I hate when wizards print *** commons with big cost yet *** p/t.
I understand that printing good commons may break many formats like limited and pauper . .
But this is down right terrible except for limited. It's p/t should be at least equal to the cost.
Posted By:
Hoonster
(2/25/2011 9:26:32 PM)
Back when Wurms were less like worms and more like wyrms.
Posted By:
mrchuckmorris
(9/2/2013 3:04:37 PM)