Could Legends possibly be the set with the widest spread between card quality? You've got some of the absolute worst cards (seen here) and some of the most game-changing (ie mana drain).
Posted By:
GainsBanding
(8/26/2009 3:14:06 AM)
This card exudes awesomeness. You know you want to build a deck around it.
Posted By:
Drewsel
(3/2/2011 9:57:59 AM)
I know Legends (and, in effect, all the initial sets) were at times game-breaking, and at others just horrible...but god, I love the flavor that oozes from them. This card is horrible...but the whole cycle just makes me warm and fuzzy inside, just like the vanilla Legendary creatures....Something about those first cards that make me wish I had played the game then, just to have them.
Posted By:
Lateralis0ne
(12/18/2009 8:33:42 PM)
From what I can tell, this cycle was SUPPOSED to be the justification for such otherwise (and potentially still, despite the initial scheme) low-wattage legends as The Lady of the Mountain and Tobias Andrion. Andrion's advantage over Serra Angel and Air Elemental was that once you got the Cathedral of Serra and/or Seafarers' Quay out, he'd have banding, every turn (not every other turn like with Helm of Chatzuk, not to mention the banding would be for more than just one creature). Very selective banding, yes, but it WAS within the adventurers' party (q.v. D&D personal campaign inspirations); the Cathedral & Co. were where the adventurers met and formed that party. In fact, extrapolating from the whole situation with Andrion, I think the original intent was that you were EXPECTED to use these lands to create the adventuring party, and thus bring the legends to their intended potentia... (see all)
Posted By:
SkyknightXi
(5/13/2011 7:58:31 PM)
"Very strictly top-down design, but I think the problem was just overestimating how powerful banding was."
This is an interesting notion. In the same set they printed the Hammerheim cycle of cards -- lands that produced colored mana, entered the battlefield untapped, and had a non-mana ability. Clrearly, the design team wasn't afraid to print lands that were better than basics.
So why did this cycle suffer from a lack of a mana ability of any sort? Why not even a tap for colorless? My only guess is that having one would make this cycle too similar to the other bunch of lands. The possibility that they overestimated the power of banding seems just as probable, now that you mention it.
Posted By:
scumbling1
(6/16/2011 4:04:01 PM)
Possibly one of the coolest card names ever.
Posted By:
hid@n
(7/13/2011 12:04:04 PM)
With Bands with Other having been made a lot better with the updated rules in Magic 2010, this card isn't nearly as bad. Of course it's still awful, it's just no longer atrocious.
Also, am I the only one who thinks "Adventurer's Guildhouse" sounds like a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon?
Posted By:
yyukichigai
(7/23/2011 4:19:34 PM)
This card has way too much flavor to be so crappy. This cycle of 'lands' consistently ranks among the worst cards ever printed and for good reason.
Posted By:
Laguz
(10/1/2009 10:31:55 AM)
Delightfully horrible. Can I give this card a -1 star?
Posted By:
Radagast
(12/16/2010 12:35:54 PM)
Even if this cycle of lands had a mana ability, I still think this is the worst cycle ever printed...
Posted By:
Guest57443454
(11/24/2009 10:33:50 PM)