Angelic Page

Rotary_Fist 2009-07-05

★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0) (6 votes)

They should have used the original angelic art for Divine, IMO

Weretarrasque 2009-07-25

★★☆☆☆ (2.3/5.0) (6 votes)

Re: flavor text

(sarcasm) Yeah, if only. (/sarcasm)

Imperialstonedragon 2011-04-21

★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0) (2 votes)

mediocore

wickedragon 2011-04-27

★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0) (3 votes)

I like it. Especially as it easily is a 2/2 flying blocker for 2 mana.
Also fits well into a white spirit/arcane deck. Or even more fun, in an angel deck. 2 mana angel? weeeee

TPmanW 2011-05-27

★★★☆☆ (3.3/5.0) (5 votes)

Cheap flier with a decent ability and relevant creature types? Sure I'll take it. A solid 3/5

tialdfswntta 2011-07-20

☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)

i would rather just take an infantry veteran over this.

sarroth 2011-08-10

★★★★★ (5.0/5.0) (2 votes)

@Weretar: Don't shoot the messenger :P

@Rotary_Fist: I can certainly understand that point of view, as the original art is far more representative of an Angel. This art just makes me think the creature type should just be Spirit. In fact, I like this as Spirit art so much I used it to make tokens for Luminous Angel, as I really dislike the printed 1/1 flying spirit tokens.

tcollins 2012-05-24

★☆☆☆☆ (1.0/5.0) (1 vote)

At least his own ability makes him a 2/2 when blocking, and if you somehow give him vigilance, he can swing as a 2/2 as well. Flying is really the best part of this card, the {T} ability itself is...meh.

Locke66 2012-09-02

☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)

Angelic Page can't target itself unless you give it vigilance somehow. Tapping it to attack or tapping it to use its ability can't happen at the same time.

I still like the card, though. Not a bad rank and file creature.

Captain_Sisay_2591 2013-05-05

☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)

They made this an Angel?! LAME! And cheap. "Angelic" doesn't mean Angel last time I checked...
0.5/5

BagOfBags 2014-02-22

☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)

Like all pages, its only useful if you turn it.
Tap

Comments (11)