I'm usually the guy that says "oh, I'm sure there's a use for it..." but this time I have to say that I have found a truly useless card. Was Wizards trying to prove that I was wrong when I said everything could be potentially useful?
Posted By:
SocialExperiment
(9/28/2009 10:49:22 AM)
Is anyone else upset that wizards didn't have Kalastria Highborn do what we expected? She could've made the nulls cheaper to throw out, She could've allowed you to use as many nulls in the deck as you wanted, done something to create them every turn by sapping life out of you or some other creature. Something. It could've been kinda cool but instead we get an unplayable zombie made worse by the fact they did nothing to make it useful.
Posted By:
Johnald
(5/11/2010 11:45:55 PM)
Why did a 2/2 for 3 need a drawback again?
Posted By:
RedAtrocitus
(4/30/2011 12:34:28 PM)
WHAT THE F***
Posted By:
True_Mumin
(9/26/2009 11:58:59 AM)
Discard fodder.
Posted By:
TheTraitorKing
(12/22/2009 7:57:33 PM)
Thats real great Wizards R&D found this card funny. It's not so funny when I pull one in a booster, actually makes me kind of hateful. Thanks guys.
Posted By:
zombietomb
(2/1/2010 7:13:56 AM)
This card is so freakin good, it'll probably replace baneslayer I'm surprised no one has caught on to it's hidden ability
Posted By:
Goatllama
(9/12/2010 1:54:39 PM)
Hey, if you put it in your Vampire deck, you can block! Hell yeah!
OR, splash vamps into your zombie deck and you can block!
Posted By:
Kryptnyt
(9/19/2010 7:13:56 PM)
Good advice for new players - if you don't have any sweet vampires, attack!
Posted By:
davetron
(10/20/2009 10:14:19 AM)
My god, a none vampire that cannot block unless you control a vampire, WTF!!!
I don't want none vamps in my vamp deck, especially not 3 mana 2/2's with draw backs!
Shame on you wizards!
Although they make up by having this guy underpowered and nighthawk overpowered, so it balances out ^^
Posted By:
Sironos
(5/7/2010 6:03:34 AM)