Pointed Discussion

Mudora 2009-06-15

★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0) (4 votes)

Kickin' art, decent card, funny flavor text. Perfect.

Necrolysis 2010-01-06

★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (4 votes)

He's just trollin'

littlebeast 2010-02-07

★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (1 vote)

IT'S A TROLL!

Gaussgoat 2010-02-22

★★★★☆ (4.3/5.0) (3 votes)

2/2 Regenerator for 3? Not bad; certainly playable if nothing extraordinary.

3/5

Zuxen 2010-06-02

★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (3 votes)

don't feed the trolls

SquareHippy 2011-01-16

★★★☆☆ (3.9/5.0) (4 votes)

It seem like Wizards got a bad piece of art for the card they had in mind, and then changed the flavour text so that the card would make sense.

Fanaticmogg 2011-02-05

★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (3 votes)

Regeneration has gotten better recently. Notice how, out of the three best creature-destruction spells in 10th ed, M10 replaced all of them with versions that allow regen?
Umad, modern removal spells?

Kryptnyt 2011-10-07

☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)

In the dungeons!

thaviel 2011-10-12

★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (3 votes)

3 mana 2/2 with regen for (G) is fine. the fact it's a common makes it really beefy for limited.

Tigt 2012-07-19

★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0) (2 votes)

One of the dodgier aspects of Masques creative was that the beasts resembled absolutely nothing you'd think they would.

TheWrathofShane 2012-09-05

☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)

Ah but he actually costs , unless you want to tap out and have him blown to bits.
So functionally a Indestructible with an upkeep cost of .

BagOfBags 2014-01-02

☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)

@WrathofShane
Actually, the extra this card "costs" is completely optional and might not be necessary.