I agree with smithney, this has got to be the worst scheme. even in a zombie deck it only passes as okay. personally, I'd rather time walk.
nvirus63116
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Agreed. ONLY decent in the zombie deck and only decent for a few turns at best.
mutantman
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
Terrible. 2/2 guys are underwhelming even when they aren't forced to attack every turn. If you're using this scheme, you'd better have a way to abuse the tokens. And even if you do, this is the worst of all the token-making schemes.
Flavros
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(2 votes)
Only good in a zombie deck, and even then not that good, you say? First of all, aren't most zombie-themed cards meant for zombie decks? Have you guys actually put Lord of the Undead or Undead Warchief in a vampire deck? Of course it's good in a zombie deck, and I might be so bold to add that it can be DAMN good in a zombie deck.
If this card doesn't win you the game in the next two turns after you get it out mid to late game, you're not playing it right.
bijart_dauth
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I agree that with the insane number of lords in a zombie deck 5 more 2/2's would be quite powerfull. However, i can think of no other schemes that combine well with zombie decks (other than the ones that work everywhere), so rather underwhelming.
Wizard-of-the-Toast
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Nice flavour text. I'm not the kind of player who always demands more power from a card but I'd have liked 2 zombies per opponent just to make it feel more like a siege. Picturing an opposing planeswalker with just one zombie knocking at his door doesn't feel much like a siege to me.
Comments (8)
If this card doesn't win you the game in the next two turns after you get it out mid to late game, you're not playing it right.