I was at a total as to how to explain this card's flavour. It definitely has all the hallmarks of one those old school flavor-first designs that only make sense if you already know what they're trying to tie it in with. I think Ideatog is right though. This appears to bes an updated (now outdated) take on Jihad - the flavour kind of fails to make the transition though. At least Jihad was kind of cool/not an annoying thing to keep track of.
Posted By:
TPmanW
(2/8/2011 9:09:35 PM)
Strictly more complicated than Honor of the Pure.
Posted By:
MysticSoldier5
(8/10/2012 11:57:37 AM)
Actually it's Jihad, but cheaper and much, much worse. Not that Jihad is all that good a card either.
Posted By:
Ideatog
(8/16/2010 10:43:20 AM)
Crusade is better.
Posted By:
mrredhatter
(10/4/2009 6:37:04 PM)
Crusade is a different thing since it cost 
.
Honor of the Pure is superior to both of them nonetheless.
Posted By:
Mode
(10/24/2009 3:38:54 PM)
Man this sucks, it doesn't even give +3 to Battle Orders!
lol
Posted By:
SquirePath
(3/8/2012 3:02:03 PM)
Between the oracle and the rulings, they should have called this one War and Peace!
Posted By:
LegoLeonidas
(9/2/2012 1:01:36 AM)
Wait, the ruling reads 'nontoken permanents'.
That's kind of annoying. Tokens are colours too!
Posted By:
psychichobo
(11/26/2012 2:47:42 PM)
useful but highly complicated, but most people do tend to play more of one color than any other. Works in EDH. Here you can only have 1 of each card anyway.
Posted By:
blazestudios23
(12/3/2012 2:45:50 PM)
This, Coat of Arms and To Arms! for no reason.
Posted By:
Black-Blue
(9/12/2013 10:58:57 AM)