@Weretar: Don't shoot the messenger :P
@Rotary_Fist: I can certainly understand that point of view, as the original art is far more representative of an Angel. This art just makes me think the creature type should just be Spirit. In fact, I like this as Spirit art so much I used it to make tokens for Luminous Angel, as I really dislike the printed 1/1 flying spirit tokens.
Posted By:
sarroth
(8/10/2011 9:33:23 AM)
They should have used the original angelic art for Divine, IMO
Posted By:
Rotary_Fist
(7/5/2009 1:47:11 AM)
I like it. Especially as it easily is a 2/2 flying blocker for 2 mana.
Also fits well into a white spirit/arcane deck. Or even more fun, in an angel deck. 2 mana angel? weeeee
Posted By:
wickedragon
(4/27/2011 3:05:34 AM)
Cheap flier with a decent ability and relevant creature types? Sure I'll take it. A solid 3/5
Posted By:
TPmanW
(5/27/2011 10:25:44 PM)
mediocore
Posted By:
Imperialstonedragon
(4/21/2011 3:06:50 AM)
Re: flavor text
(sarcasm) Yeah, if only. (/sarcasm)
Posted By:
Weretarrasque
(7/25/2009 8:18:46 AM)
At least his own ability makes him a 2/2 when blocking, and if you somehow give him vigilance, he can swing as a 2/2 as well. Flying is really the best part of this card, the {T} ability itself is...meh.
Posted By:
tcollins
(5/24/2012 12:44:11 AM)
i would rather just take an infantry veteran over this.
Posted By:
tialdfswntta
(7/20/2011 7:50:48 PM)
Angelic Page can't target itself unless you give it vigilance somehow. Tapping it to attack or tapping it to use its ability can't happen at the same time.
I still like the card, though. Not a bad rank and file creature.
Posted By:
Locke66
(9/2/2012 11:19:09 PM)
They made this an Angel?! LAME! And cheap. "Angelic" doesn't mean Angel last time I checked...
0.5/5
Posted By:
Captain_Sisay_2591
(5/5/2013 1:09:22 AM)