This is what happens with grizzly bears do steroids and fap a lot.
PEVE_O
★★★★☆ (4.7/5.0)(30 votes)
Hallelujah! My prayers have been answered! Runeclaw Bear makes his triumphant return and what a return it is! I spent many sleepless nights over the past year worrying that some idiot at WOTC would decide that Runeclaw Bear was too powerful and that it would not see reprint. Now my night terrors are over. I will be able to sleep soundly at night, knowing that If a burglar breaks into my house and challenges me to a game of Magic (Standard format of course), I can summon the might fury of Runeclaw Bear to rip him apart 2 damage at a time.
Who honestly cares about some of the other returning M 10 cards; Lightning Bolt Lame. Baneslayer Angel sideboard at best. all other cards fall short of Runeclaw Bears Glory
Still doubting Runeclaw Bear? try comboing it with Bear Umbra and watch your opponent's eyes bleed as their brain melts. No one can handle bear on bear action, It's like opening the Ark of the Covenant.
DoctorKenneth
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(11 votes)
Peve O, you get points in my book for giving me a mental image of Russian Stacking Bears. I'm not sure what you can spend those points on. Dexterity, perhaps?
Well, the bear is back. No surprises there, but I do find it odd that some of the other recently re-tooled cards in M10 didn't make it into the set, where this did. It seems equally absurd in this set, actually, next to cards like Garruk's Companion, which can serve equally well as a new player tutoring aid due to it's flavour tie-in and simplistic nature.
The inclusion of the bears (sorry, bear) really isn't upsetting without the preview fake-out of last year. The real problem I have is that I can't see Popeye Bear here as being nearly as iconic as his Grizzly counterpart. So that just begs the question- why is he here?
When this many cards in standered are strictly better than the card you printted, then your card shouldn't be printed, period. This is what I hate core sets: so much potential wasted on trashy vanilla creatures. Because little Jimmy can't understand "When this creature comes into play, X happens". That's just WAY to complex!
Boo. They missed their chance to correct their flavor travesty from M10. Half-star for replacing Grizzly Bears for absolutely no reason. Only good as a late pick in limited and as an easily understood card for new players. Grizzly Bears performed both of those functions just as well or better than this card. A movie an4logy: Why go see a Troll 2 remake? I'm seeing a terrible movie, at least give me the real thing!
count_dorku
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(8 votes)
"Hi, I'm the Zendikar block and I have a minimum of three cards just in green that make vanilla 2/2 bears look terrible. All of them are common."
Stray_Dog
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(3 votes)
Poor bear... he's taken all the steroids in the world, and he still can't keep up with Garruk's Companion :(
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
Because making cards playable is too scary for new comers.
Give him intimidate! He looks scary enough and big bad green bears should be feared!
oh, and they didnt reprint grizzlys because of this,
"NOOOOOOO... MY GRIZZLY BEARS ARE WORTHLESS NOW!!!!!!!!"
Gelzo
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(7 votes)
I don't understand at all why they replaced the Grizzlies. I don't really need 8 bears in my imaginary vintage deck.
Why break tradition?
Well, I guess I could be thankful that running bear tribal for the lulz is now slightly more feasible. Um, make that bearly more feasible, I guess.
Vishlord
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(2 votes)
I liked the druidic and natural feel of grizzlies and Balduvian bears, the need to make every creature quirky or weird takes some of the contrast from the game.
Sh1ft
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
just ordered my garuk the wildspeaker deck cant wait to have 3 runeclaw bears in my libary. ill be able to destroy my friends with this deck!
mike_stubbs1
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(2 votes)
They should have dropped this underpowered relic instead of rebranding it.
ROBRAM89
★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0)(3 votes)
"OBSOLETE! OBSOLETE! OBSOLETE!"
land_comment
★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0)(2 votes)
This sucks. Like, really, really sucks. Zendikar has maybe like EVERY ONE of it's creatures better than this. And, anyway, what's wrong with the good old Grizzly Bears?
Wanderer25
★★★★☆ (4.7/5.0)(17 votes)
My main problem with the card, besides the unnecessary break from tradition, is its incongruous flavor.
Vanilla creatures should have vanilla names. Creatures with non-vanilla names should have corresponding abilities.
Grizzly Bears was a vanilla creature. What does Runeclaw Bear do that's different from the Grizzlies? Nothing.
There's a trading card game I've heard of where creatures have grandiose names without matching abilities. A card could be called "Doma the Angel of Silence," or "Sorcerer of the Doomed," for example, and be entirely vanilla. That would be Yu Gi Oh. Let's not go in that direction, please.
So how could you design a Runeclaw Bear that makes sense? Let's think about card design for a moment.
Runes suggest objects that have been inscribed with spells to grant them magical powers. What are magical objects? Artifacts. Enchantments. Claws suggest that he could destroy said objects. So we have "destroy target artifact or enchantment".
Now there was a 2/2 creature printed in a recent block that was quite powerful and well received. It cost WG and had the ability "1, sacrifice this creature: Destroy target artifact or enchantment". That's right, I'm thinking of Qasali Pridemage. It also has exalted, which is not exactly a core set ability.
So take Qasali Pridemage, maybe make the casting cost GG or 1GG instead of WG, drop the Exalted, and retain the activated ability. Maybe make the activation cost G or 1G instead. Or maybe make a green version of Ronom Unicorn, with "Sacrifice Runeclaw Bear: Destroy target artifact".
How hard is this? It's not. This took me maybe ten minutes to think of. This card reeks of lazy design and pandering to young noobs fresh from YuGiOh. I'd give it 0 stars if I could, but for now I'll have to be content with 0.5 and scowling at the screen for a minute.
bijart_dauth
★★★★☆ (4.0/5.0)(2 votes)
I find it funny that even though its the exact same card, its ratting is about 1/3rd that of grizzly bears.
Not that i'm arguing though, I totally agree.
Imperialstonedragon
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(3 votes)
bear tribal!
SoulShatterer
★☆☆☆☆ (1.8/5.0)(4 votes)
I don't see whats with all the hate for 2-drop commons. They HAVE TO EXIST, and I don't think anyone has ever minded drawing one of these guys in a draft. Heck, he's 5 damage on turn 3 if you drew a Giant Growth in the same opening hand.
MasterOfEtherium
★★☆☆☆ (2.0/5.0)(3 votes)
4th Best Card In The Set
Paleopaladin
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(3 votes)
@Wanderer25 - 5 / 5 on your comment! Very well put!
Khavrion
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(5 votes)
Strictly worse than Grizzly Bears. Aside from that, about as good as Grizzly Bears.
AvatarofBro
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
It's a bloodthirsty bear with runes inscribed on it's claws. Am I missing something? 5/5
Hunter06
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Ever notice the skull hes adjacent to? 1.5/5 Stars
Claytoon
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
So I guess the runes on its arms are just for show? Since a good ol' regular Grizzly Bear can still take it out. Kinda like my ex coworker: works out but his guns are just for show.
Comments (27)
Runeclaw Bear makes his triumphant return and what a return it is! I spent many sleepless nights over the past year worrying that some idiot at WOTC would decide that Runeclaw Bear was too powerful and that it would not see reprint. Now my night terrors are over. I will be able to sleep soundly at night, knowing that If a burglar breaks into my house and challenges me to a game of Magic (Standard format of course), I can summon the might fury of Runeclaw Bear to rip him apart 2 damage at a time.
Who honestly cares about some of the other returning M 10 cards;
Lightning Bolt Lame.
Baneslayer Angel sideboard at best.
all other cards fall short of Runeclaw Bears Glory
Still doubting Runeclaw Bear? try comboing it with Bear Umbra and watch your opponent's eyes bleed as their brain melts.
No one can handle bear on bear action, It's like opening the Ark of the Covenant.
Well, the bear is back. No surprises there, but I do find it odd that some of the other recently re-tooled cards in M10 didn't make it into the set, where this did. It seems equally absurd in this set, actually, next to cards like Garruk's Companion, which can serve equally well as a new player tutoring aid due to it's flavour tie-in and simplistic nature.
The inclusion of the bears (sorry, bear) really isn't upsetting without the preview fake-out of last year. The real problem I have is that I can't see Popeye Bear here as being nearly as iconic as his Grizzly counterpart. So that just begs the question- why is he here?
Actually, no I don't. Just compare this guy to Beastbreaker of Bala Ged, Cylian Sunsinger, Gnarlid Pack, Oran-Rief Survivalist, and Nest Invader.
When this many cards in standered are strictly better than the card you printted, then your card shouldn't be printed, period. This is what I hate core sets: so much potential wasted on trashy vanilla creatures. Because little Jimmy can't understand "When this creature comes into play, X happens". That's just WAY to complex!
Balduvian Bears
Bear Cub
Forest Bear
You may only put 20 bears in a legacy legal deck. To fill slots add Werebear and Caller of the Claw
Add Bear Umbra, as well. And Bearscape. And Golden Bear.
Give him intimidate! He looks scary enough and big bad green bears should be feared!
oh, and they didnt reprint grizzlys because of this,
"NOOOOOOO... MY GRIZZLY BEARS ARE WORTHLESS NOW!!!!!!!!"
Why break tradition?
Well, I guess I could be thankful that running bear tribal for the lulz is now slightly more feasible. Um, make that bearly more feasible, I guess.
Vanilla creatures should have vanilla names. Creatures with non-vanilla names should have corresponding abilities.
Grizzly Bears was a vanilla creature. What does Runeclaw Bear do that's different from the Grizzlies? Nothing.
There's a trading card game I've heard of where creatures have grandiose names without matching abilities. A card could be called "Doma the Angel of Silence," or "Sorcerer of the Doomed," for example, and be entirely vanilla. That would be Yu Gi Oh. Let's not go in that direction, please.
So how could you design a Runeclaw Bear that makes sense? Let's think about card design for a moment.
Runes suggest objects that have been inscribed with spells to grant them magical powers. What are magical objects? Artifacts. Enchantments. Claws suggest that he could destroy said objects. So we have "destroy target artifact or enchantment".
Now there was a 2/2 creature printed in a recent block that was quite powerful and well received. It cost WG and had the ability "1, sacrifice this creature: Destroy target artifact or enchantment". That's right, I'm thinking of Qasali Pridemage. It also has exalted, which is not exactly a core set ability.
So take Qasali Pridemage, maybe make the casting cost GG or 1GG instead of WG, drop the Exalted, and retain the activated ability. Maybe make the activation cost G or 1G instead. Or maybe make a green version of Ronom Unicorn, with "Sacrifice Runeclaw Bear: Destroy target artifact".
How hard is this? It's not. This took me maybe ten minutes to think of. This card reeks of lazy design and pandering to young noobs fresh from YuGiOh. I'd give it 0 stars if I could, but for now I'll have to be content with 0.5 and scowling at the screen for a minute.
Not that i'm arguing though, I totally agree.
5/5
1.5/5 Stars