This creature survives your own Earthquakes and Infernos. At the same time red has very little possibilities to destroy white enchantments, so against white mage there allways should be white permanent on the battelefield. So it's friendly fireproof 5 cost 4/4. Sideboard material.
Posted By:
tavaritz
(6/10/2011 11:21:12 AM)
This thing hates Boros. Of course Boros wasn't even printed until much later but come on, I'm sure R/W decks were all too common way back then.
Posted By:
Test-Subject_217601
(8/13/2010 9:53:28 AM)
Actually, this works in Pauper EDH with Pyrohemia.
Posted By:
TKusturinMe
(1/21/2011 3:22:56 PM)
Nothing wrong with a red creature with pro-red. Plenty of mass damage spells that hit everything. Much in the same way black creatures with pro-black work well with Pestilence.
Posted By:
jfre81
(11/4/2011 12:53:04 AM)
It always seemed obvious to me that the Protection was a misprint and it should have Pro White. (Which would have made it constructed-playable at the time, believe it or not - Sword to Plowshares was that important, and creatures in general sucked compared to now.) Compare Ivory Guardians, from the same set.
Posted By:
jeff-heikkinen
(9/30/2010 2:15:01 AM)
If it was a white creature with Pro red, gets +1/+1 if u control another white permanent or red with pro white +1/+1 if u control another red one, it would make sense...
but this!?
Posted By:
Esprel
(12/31/2009 1:22:24 AM)
Is the name a Rolling Stones reference? The way that "Apes Of Rath" was a John Steinbeck reference?
Posted By:
shondeaphid
(10/4/2011 2:39:33 PM)
I think everyone is missing the real reason to play this card: It's metal as f**k.
Good creature? No. Good album cover? Hell yeah.
Posted By:
Bluehero
(2/24/2012 1:37:59 PM)
This thing can't decide if it hates red or white. Then again, its decision shouldn't matter, because it would be useless then, too.
Posted By:
Weretarrasque
(9/25/2009 7:59:15 AM)