Pointed Discussion

Magic: The Gathering Card Comments Archive

Cyclopean Mummy

Multiverse ID: 1433

Cyclopean Mummy

Comments (7)

GrimGorgonBC
★★★☆☆ (3.6/5.0) (4 votes)
oh its not THAT bad is it? lol
Guest57443454
★☆☆☆☆ (1.4/5.0) (5 votes)
One of the worst cards ever printed, the players even said so when they voted this card out after 4th Edition. If only this was a 2/2...
Tanaka348
★★★★☆ (4.1/5.0) (4 votes)
2 for a 2/1 isn't that bad, even with a slight drawback. Not that I'm saying this a good card by any means, but when you also have utter turds like the "bands with other" lands and many incredibly overcosted artifacts, it's far from the worst.
Tommy9898
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0) (4 votes)
No, it's not the worst card ever printed. Its just a 2/1 for two with a silly, unimportant draw back. Plenty of decks used it way back when just to have a two drop, calm down people.
Gabriel422
★★★★☆ (4.7/5.0) (6 votes)
Take that, Tarmogoyf!
scumbling1
★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0) (2 votes)
"One of the worst cards ever printed"

It's not good, but it's not that bad. It's certainly better than Squire, and even the recently-printed Mindless Null.

Any creature that can attack and / or block doesn't really qualify for the "worst card ever". You can still kill an opponent with a Squire. That title belongs for cards that have such inane and narrow abilities that they effectively do nothing at all -- Great Wall, Melting, Break Open, ect.
Radagast
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Actually, by the standards of the time, this wasn't that bad. Erg Raiders was better, though it had a drawback that would show up now and then (people actually played Paralyze to deal with early beaters with drawbacks), and its own drawback is nearly meaningless, which means you've got a 2/1 for 1B. Not great, but not terrible. Compare it to Scathe Zombies, which is terrible, or even Spineless Thug, which gains a point of toughness - big deal - but also a huge drawback of not being able to block.