I give it 2 stars for being a functional copy of hill giant, a baseline card. I give it -1 star for being printed in the same set as lord of shaterskull p a s s. Geese Wizards, you don't have to insult us...
ZEvilMustache
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(7 votes)
Vanilla or not, I think the REAL question here is whether to pronounce the J as in "Log" or "Magic." I'm all for the second, as I find the first unpronounceable. I'm sure we'll all be arguing about this for next two years.
"I attack with my Lagac Lizard."
"You're playing that junk?"
"Um, you were supposed to criticize my pronunciation..."
Zher0
★★★★☆ (4.7/5.0)(8 votes)
@ZEvilMustache In the Russian name for the card, the Cyrillic letter Ge is used, which in Russian represents a hard G as in the English word "log." That being said, is the emphasis on the first or the second syllable?
OutlawD1
★☆☆☆☆ (1.6/5.0)(5 votes)
wizards stop printing these cards...ffs
achilleselbow
★★★☆☆ (3.0/5.0)(7 votes)
Go away, Hill Giant! Can't you see that nobody likes you? Dressing up as a minotaur or a lizard won't help!
Ameisenmeister
★☆☆☆☆ (1.5/5.0)(5 votes)
It's even more useless than Hill Giant thanks to the terrible creature type.
metalevolence
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(6 votes)
Cardcypher, commons are for limited. Lord of Shatterskull Pass and other bottom-of-the-barrel rares are for your unremarkable kitchen table deck. Maybe if you were rating it down saying something like, "a copy of hill giant, a baseline card, -1 star for being printed in a limited environment in which a typical aggro deck is less viable than usual," you would have a point, but as things stand it's painfully clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
Robface
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(5 votes)
Why does Wizards insist on reprinting Hill Giant over and over again except under new aliases?
Shadoflaam
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(12 votes)
This card is epic! I have used it in every deck I've ever made: My RedDeckLoses My 500 Memnite/4 Mountain/ Lagac Lizard deck My Yugioh Divine deck My Monopoly Chance Card deck My UNO deck 10/5 Stars, Black Lotus! I... This is the wrong forum, right?
Dragon23
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
3/3 for 4. Unimpressive, but ok. I'd rather have good ol' Hill Giant.
I do wish they'd make some interesting and useful red common creatures that are larger than a Goblin and not as worthless as a Hill Giant or its clones.
An example of how to do this half-way right is that new 3/3 for 3R from Scars of Mirrodon that has Metalcraft that grants it +3/+3 and Haste. Okay, sure, it's still not Constructed worthy, but at least it DOES something interesting, instead of this Hill Giant retread.
Stray_Dog
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Noooooo! How dare you all tease him with your cruel words >:'( He's just trying to get by... I'm gonna play him anyway, screw you all *runs off crying*
IndianaWalsh
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(5 votes)
Guys. Look at the flavor text. "None of which have changed them one bit." It's so ancient, it is meant to be judged by 1993 standards. That's why it sucks. Because it should have been a standard vanilla card for the early days of Magic, not a crappy creature for 2010's Magic.
ScissorsLizard
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I understand the need to print vanilla creatures. They have their place in Magic. I just wish they would at least print them in useful creature types.
... though I guess in red, Hill Giant would be about as close as they could come to a useful creature type for a 3/3.
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
.5/5
Its an option in limited, and unplayable in constructed.
Moxxy
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
The reason they never die is because they are never played.
Comments (20)
"There is"
"So there is never enough Hill Giants."
"..."
This is exactly what can explain how red commons work at most.... sadly.
"I attack with my Lagac Lizard."
"You're playing that junk?"
"Um, you were supposed to criticize my pronunciation..."
In the Russian name for the card, the Cyrillic letter Ge is used, which in Russian represents a hard G as in the English word "log."
That being said, is the emphasis on the first or the second syllable?
Maybe if you were rating it down saying something like, "a copy of hill giant, a baseline card, -1 star for being printed in a limited environment in which a typical aggro deck is less viable than usual," you would have a point, but as things stand it's painfully clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
My RedDeckLoses
My 500 Memnite/4 Mountain/ Lagac Lizard deck
My Yugioh Divine deck
My Monopoly Chance Card deck
My UNO deck
10/5 Stars, Black Lotus! I...
This is the wrong forum, right?
Steamflogger Boss
War-spike Changeling
Coal Stoker
Furnace Brood
Hatcher Bully
Kavu Runner
Lavaborn Muse
Lord of Shatterskull Pass
Lowland Oaf
Roc of Kher Ridges
Rosheen Meanderer
The following cards are always better in a mono-red deck:
Talruum Minotaur
Stone Giant
Viashino Fangtail
Zerapa Minotaur
Clickslither
Cyclops Gladiator
Flowstone Giant
Goblin Razerrunners
Highland Giant
Lowland Giant
Mudbrawler Raiders
Pardic Arsonist
Raging Minotaur
Shatterskull Giant
Sootwalkers
Spitemare
An example of how to do this half-way right is that new 3/3 for 3R from Scars of Mirrodon that has Metalcraft that grants it +3/+3 and Haste. Okay, sure, it's still not Constructed worthy, but at least it DOES something interesting, instead of this Hill Giant retread.
He's just trying to get by...
I'm gonna play him anyway, screw you all *runs off crying*
It's so ancient, it is meant to be judged by 1993 standards. That's why it sucks. Because it should have been a standard vanilla card for the early days of Magic, not a crappy creature for 2010's Magic.
... though I guess in red, Hill Giant would be about as close as they could come to a useful creature type for a 3/3.
Its an option in limited, and unplayable in constructed.