Pointed Discussion

Magic: The Gathering Card Comments Archive

Cultbrand Cinder

Multiverse ID: 142068

Cultbrand Cinder

Comments (15)

SavageBrain89
★☆☆☆☆ (1.2/5.0) (4 votes)
There are so many good black/red, shaman, and elemental creatures out there; why was this piece of crap even created?
Vinifera7
★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0) (1 vote)
This card seems pretty weak.
Owls_and_More_Owls
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0) (2 votes)
If only it cost just one less, It wouldn't be so bad.
Tobolococo
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
awesome art, wish it was used in a decent card
Baconradar
★★☆☆☆ (2.5/5.0) (3 votes)
Not a bad card at all. Just not a great one.

If you ignore recent years of creature power creep, then it's fine.
Grimnbo
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Skin could use a little less branding, a little more rending.
Kindulas
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
whay are you paying two mana for scar?
keeds4
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Too slow -- 5 CMC for a 3/3 creature with a nice, little ability? Can you imagine wasting a Rite of Flame to cast this guy early?
Shiny_Umbreon
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (2 votes)
Compare to Skinrender.
EpicBroccoli
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
It confuses me why this card doesn't have wither, especially for 5 CMC.
Polychromatic
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
It seems fine for limited.
Splizer
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
For those who wished to run 8 of these in their decks, do not despair. Pith Driller is very much from the same tree.
DoragonShinzui
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Hill Giant + Scar = ...A mediocre creature?
Lord_of_Gelectrodes
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
THAT NAME
fooligan
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
People who rated this card probably didn't play all that much limited.