It's so bad it puts you in debt.
Posted By:
azure_drake222222
(2/4/2013 11:54:14 AM)
Turns a land into a Gideon's Lawkeeper, but the difference in cost is glaringly significant.
However, which do you think is easier to destroy: a 1/1 creature, or a land?
Ok, better question: When have you seen Craterize in any pro-tour's sideboard?
Posted By:
Ferlord
(2/6/2013 8:01:13 PM)
I like enchant lands, but this card is far too expensive. If you want to use it in the turn you play it, it basically costs six mana, and an additional mana each time you want to use it.
Posted By:
majinara
(2/12/2013 4:23:40 AM)
I remember when you have 1 drop common creatures that did the same thing since this needs a land to tap to pay for the cost.
Posted By:
bfellow
(2/13/2013 8:55:18 AM)
Looks neat until you realize that on the turn you play it you've paid effectively six mana to tap a creature and do nothing else, and that's the best case scenario.
Posted By:
The_Trendkill
(2/20/2013 5:16:14 AM)
Lulz, people actually think this is bad in limited o_O
Posted By:
bowlofgumbo
(2/23/2013 2:06:57 PM)
A bit like Gideon's Lawkeeper. Except dreadful.
Posted By:
HowardTreesong
(3/11/2013 3:09:10 PM)
How to make a very expensive Maze of Ith What you are actually getting here is an awful lot like a Icy Manipulator. Should be a little cheaper, but more mana intensive, I/E (1) WW
Posted By:
Drewskithelegend
(11/13/2013 9:57:02 PM)
Is it just me, or is that flavor text oddly...um.....(wink wink nudge nudge)
Posted By:
Alvorada
(4/18/2014 7:33:33 AM)
The difference between 4 and 5 converted mana cost is evident with this card. Four could cause potential problems in limited (repeatedly nullifying the biggest threat on the table is NOT a cheap effect), but five makes it hard to find a place. That said, it can still be a good option to sideboard in against decks running just a few creatures at a time.
Maybe if it had a 3W casting cost and granted the land "W, T: Tap target creature"?
Posted By:
PopcornBunni
(4/30/2014 6:29:28 PM)