Art is amazing, but the card sucks. Who cares about Baneslayer? This card is overpriced even without considering Baneslayer.
Posted By:
Lord_Ascapelion
(5/17/2012 10:37:51 PM)
Well...let's compare this to Archangel. For 7 converted mana, you get a 5/5 with flying and first strike, and with Archangel you get a 5/5 with flying and vigilance. Archangel is a bit more mana specific, needing 2 white, but it's still done easily in a multi-color deck. I guess it all comes down to what you need the angel for. Archangel is now uncommon due to the Innistrad block reprinting it as one, so I guess Archangel wins that contest.
Even still, neither Angel really stands up in casual constructed in Magic today. You've got a lot of more powerful and cost effective Angels to use including that Baneslayer lady, of course. :P
Posted By:
rogonandi
(9/14/2012 2:24:20 PM)
@themicronaut, Baneslayer has first strike and is a 5/5. Without an additional Aura or Instant or something, it would not take it out.
This is a pretty rough card.
Posted By:
Wafer
(7/18/2013 1:29:51 PM)
@wafer
Yes, it would. They both have first strike, so they would both die. He never said it would live through the fight, only that it can take out baneslayer.
Posted By:
Bbone37
(9/8/2013 1:31:50 PM)
This was among the worst rares I ever pulled. urgh. Did love Torment though. All the white cards in this block had some kind of printing error and were printed really low res. Black magic meddled with the printing process methinks.
Was that just a europe thing?
Posted By:
doitpow
(9/17/2013 3:31:17 PM)
This card is still quite bad and was quite bad when it was printed. The creature that held the title "most powerful creature of all time" for a long time- psychatog, was printed in the same block. At uncommon.
Posted By:
Lazrbeams
(3/8/2014 8:15:03 AM)
I like how everyone says "Baneslayer is way better" well no f***ing sh*t Baneslayer is better than 80% of the other angels out there
Posted By:
Thatonetrombonechick
(4/5/2014 9:47:06 PM)