Aw, it's shy. It must be self-conscious about how *** awful it is and doing us a favor by hiding away out of sight. At least you're not Chimney Imp, Valesk.
Posted By:
Dolorosa
(1/12/2012 10:56:41 AM)
So it's a 5/5 for 
with... a drawback?
Wait what?
Posted By:
EpicBroccoli
(2/26/2012 10:51:09 AM)
The art is pretty intense. If this was a strong card, I would probably like it a lot.
Posted By:
metalevolence
(8/19/2010 1:51:59 PM)
Should have been a rare, just for the lulz.
Posted By:
SirMalkin
(5/14/2011 8:50:39 AM)
So... I can either spend 6R for a 5/5 with a horrible drawback, or 3 and then 5R for the same trash... Yeah, no thanks!
Posted By:
Radagast
(7/20/2011 7:47:10 PM)
Morph cards shouldn't be rated this low. They are, at worst, 2/2 for 3 colourless.
I actually have a copy of this in an erratic explosion deck I'm trying to build. He is one of the weakest cards there, but I haven't found a suitabe replacement yet. I've obviously never played him for his CC or his flip cost, only for the baseline 3.
Posted By:
Baconradar
(10/22/2011 5:17:38 AM)
Much better than Raging Bull.
Posted By:
YawgmothsWish
(2/12/2012 1:37:59 AM)
The reason this guy is rated worse than 2/2 for 3 creatures is because all of that text and his 5/5 body gives you hope that he might be good, but then you realize the text is just a drawback on a creature that was already overpriced for its power.
Posted By:
foazak
(1/18/2014 5:34:21 PM)