i prefer the new art though.
Posted By:
PhyrexianFailure
(4/28/2011 4:58:39 PM)
It isn't good; It doesn't work;
Its cost is much too high--
And now they took away the flavor text;
I kinda want to cry!
WAAAA!
Posted By:
Bogmire
(5/26/2012 4:50:02 PM)
This still isnt Obsi*** golem! He's just too broken to consider for reprint.
Posted By:
Kryptnyt
(4/29/2011 5:49:52 PM)
I have to stand up for the old artwork. The previous version was twisted and menacing, with really crisp detail; it fit nicely with the core set reprints' flavor text perfectly. This new version looks muted, cartoony, and hardly phyrexian at all.
The fourth-wall breaking new flavor text makes it even harder to take it seriously. We get it: this is not the first printing of this card.
Posted By:
scumbling1
(4/29/2011 10:19:09 AM)
1000 times strictly worse than Wurmcoil Engine. But then again Wurmcoil Engine dies to 3 Doom Blades.
Posted By:
Guest742242900
(7/27/2011 3:16:41 PM)
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that this Phyrexian weapon of ages past is LESS powerful overall than an angry Streetsweeper in Ravnica? A 5/4 for 6 vs. a 4/6 with a random little ability for the same casting cost? The Phyrexians have really been slipping lately, or this was more of a failed experiment of ages past vs. a quality weapon. And it still loses to Wurmcoil Engine - badly.
Posted By:
Radagast
(1/20/2013 9:29:14 AM)
i like both arts..and the old FLAVA
Posted By:
MasterOfEtherium
(4/29/2011 11:49:00 PM)
The flavor text has pretty terrible grammar. Then again, I suppose that that tends to be par for the course with Magic cards.
7th Edition had the best art too, so I guess all around this reprint was poorly done.
Posted By:
DysprosiumJudas
(5/21/2011 11:42:37 AM)
it sucked back in the day and it sucks now.
should have reprinted phyrexian colossus instead.
Posted By:
supershawn
(4/30/2011 4:18:45 PM)
Never thought I'd have something to debate taking Razorfield Rhino over...
Posted By:
SeiberTross
(5/2/2011 7:39:23 AM)