i liked its other picture, and its swamp cousin, i have 4 of these, after i gave 4 away to a new player,
they weren't bad back in the day when vanilla creatures nearly always cost 1x for a x/x creature,
and for a while it was a good blue beefy creature
but it wasn't necessarily good, even back then
and now it isn't even playable at all. at all!
they need a legendary wizard holding a fish bowel and a bunny that lets you sacrafice it for a 6/6 vizzerdrix token
Posted By:
Ava_Adore
(1/24/2010 4:29:52 PM)
What? A big blue creature that isn't a kraken or leviathan? What's this world coming to?
Posted By:
divine_exodus
(9/26/2010 12:00:44 PM)
I bought one for 50 cents as a present for a girl who loved bunnies.
Why wouldn't she go out with me?
Posted By:
RJDroid
(7/11/2012 10:31:51 PM)
I have four of these in my Really-Crappy-Cards-with-Awesome-Flavor-Text deck.
Posted By:
TheChurchIsHere
(8/31/2010 7:59:32 PM)
Blue has to pay out of the wazoo for a creature this big. Blue isn't known for it's large creatures.
Posted By:
Johnald
(5/20/2010 4:48:51 PM)
This card definately beats Brassman.
Posted By:
Nephtys
(5/21/2010 7:43:26 AM)
Why the $#@% is this Rare?!
Posted By:
True_Mumin
(6/15/2009 6:22:25 AM)
Looks nice to starting players, but is less than worth it. I'm glad he was cut for 10th edition, because it's mean to try and sell one of these or a Trained Orgg to a new player.
Posted By:
Tilon13
(11/19/2008 12:53:35 AM)
FUBAR. If you have ALOT of mana production, then I guess you could throw it in there. Otherwise, it's a waste of paper.
I hasten to add, however that the artwork is pretty down. ^_^
Posted By:
darkstarleviathan
(8/20/2009 9:01:04 PM)
Meh. Not worth putting in most decks, but really not bad. Not particularly good, but not bad. Blue normally has to pay an arm and a leg for P/T.
Posted By:
Joseph_Leito
(6/26/2009 9:28:34 AM)