One of the more interesting pieces of flavor text ever printed. This is a very sub-par creature on average...if only it had 1 more point of power...
Saxophonist
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(12 votes)
Why the hell would I want to know about treefolk mating habits?!
Shiduba
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Lol what a weird card. Not any reason to play this. And the flavor is stupid
ScissorsLizard
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(4 votes)
It gets points for being unloved. And the weird flavor text.
Motorival
★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0)(4 votes)
Five points for bizarre flavor, terrible art and under-appreciated-ness.
Champion_Kitsune
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Color-shifted into white for M10...
And I dunno, whoever wrote that flavor text sounds excited. Molasses? That's just icky...
FragNutMK1
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
As in "Slow as molasses" At least they didn't name it "Ironwood Treefolk".
Carnophage_4ever
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Oh my God. I remember the guy. As a native French speaker, that card's name was unbelievably hard for me and my friends to pronounce back in the day. Ah! memories. Makes your deck greener, I suppose. 2/5 for the flashback.
Radagast
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Underpowered by any standard, except for "back in the day" when it could block a Hill Giant, kill it, and surivve - yeah.
Half-baked artwork and loony flavor text. Not to be picky, but if Treefolk are trees, they should reproduce in the same way. This flavor text implies a more animal-like reproduction and... okay, ewwww... that's enough thought given to that?!
Yes it is underpowered now, but in the earliest days, this was a solid five-drop for a green deck. Usually kept back for defense, but capable (at the time) on offense, too.
1maketoilets
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
"Well, hello there. I'm a tree."
Kryptnyt
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
The flavortext does, however, explain the sultry look (s)he is giving you.
JFM2796
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Flavor text is so wrong.
DaMaster012
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Great; so for all that flavor text and one of the most notoriously underwhelming vanillas ever printed, all we got was a quick de***ion of a treefolk ejaculating. WHAT HAS BEEN READ, CANNOT BE UNREAD.
Thanks Wizards, for so horribly skewing my perception of brown sugar.
0.5 out of 5, for ruining my oatmeal. And tainting my candied bacon.
Bogmire
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
ok....
ChumleyX
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
When I look at this card, I fully expect it to start pelting apples at Dorothy, Scarecrow and Tin Man.
DaJoshMaster
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Look ma'! No hands!
Equinox523
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
There has always been a place for these kinds of defensive creatures. This was succeeded by Redwood Treefolk and more recently, Pheres-Band Centaurs.
weasel_fierce
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Not a great creature in it's day but it was a high toughness blocker. At 5 mana, not sure if it's worth it over a Giant Spider but few other Green's blocked as big.
Comments (20)
And I dunno, whoever wrote that flavor text sounds excited. Molasses? That's just icky...
Half-baked artwork and loony flavor text. Not to be picky, but if Treefolk are trees, they should reproduce in the same way. This flavor text implies a more animal-like reproduction and... okay, ewwww... that's enough thought given to that?!
Thanks Wizards, for so horribly skewing my perception of brown sugar.
0.5 out of 5, for ruining my oatmeal. And tainting my candied bacon.