Pointed Discussion

3/3 trample for 2GG seems GOOD to me at common.

The creature itself is cost efficient but the scavenge is overpriced but at least (1), but maybe scavenge got really overpowered during testing. Still, that'll keep cards like this from seeing anything but bits of draft/sealed play when you compare scavenge costs of guys like dreg mangler and the 5/5 Insect for (G)(G)(2), and scavenge at (G)(G)(4). But those are UC and rare, respectively so.... Do whatever you want wizards, lol.

Mad points for being a giant mossy Komodo dragon. Scavenge is overpriced (as it usually is).

What if Scavenge granted the recipient whatever keyword abilities the scavenged creature had? Now that would be interesting.

Scavenge must be a super powerful ability if it is this expensive in commons. Pros like me will be patient and use the scavenge ability in the late game.

I always get so excited when a new set comes around so that I can make all sorts of comments on Gatherer. But eventually I come to the dregs, such as this card, and I languish in wordlessness. It's not that cards like these are bad per se, they're just, well, boring, bland. They aren't good, but they aren't bad either. They aren't even funny or memorable. Merely they just fill a Limited need (or that's what WotC tells us). So there's nothing really to add save to say that 'Hey look, it's another card you'll get too much of in your boosters.'

It's meant to Scavenge ONTO, rather than the other way around. Not bad, but not great. I'd have liked it more if the lizard was in the forefront rather than the elf, and not blending into the back of the picture.

Why the low rating? This lizard is a house in limited. Fairly costed with a moderate Scavenge at Common.

It would be a fair card at common without scavenge. That said, it's not really technically possible for the scavenge to be overcosted. The value of the card doesn't hinge on you being able to use scavenge in the first place.

"We're experiencing a shortage of sweet sexy ass in our set!"
"Quick, put a scantily clad girl in front of that lizard!"

Decent in draft. Terrible elsewhere. 2/5

right off the bat, a 4 cost 3/3 with trample at common rarity should be a no-brainer. The extra Scavenge is just a little frosting on the limited (and casual) beast.

And now, here's where my reason for commenting on this card comes in:

Have you all noticed that Scavenge is always just a secondary, minor ability of the creatures it is on? Let's look at all of the Scavenge cards in general...

There are 10: Korozda Monitor, Deadbridge Goliath, Slitherhead, Dreg Mangler, Sluiceway Scorpion, Golgari Decoy, Drudge beetle, Sewer Shambler, Zanikev Locust, and Terrus Wurm.
Each of these creatures have a different scavenge cost. If you add them all together and divide by 10, the average scavenging cost is 4.6 (or if you're to round to realism, ). The average power, however, is 2.8, (let's just say 3). The average CMC is 3.8 ()
That means that the average Scavenge creature is a 3/3 with Scavenge .
Compared that to something like Giant Growth, Titanic Growth, Hunger of the Howlpack, or even Common Bond, the Scavenge is usually shoved to the side until you've got nothing better to do. Is that a good mentality to be thinking when playing Scavenge??? Only use it when you've got nothing better to do?

I understand that having two uses for one card is useful, but Azorius already pulls that off, and usually kicks Golgari's butt around.

3/5. A 3/3 for 4 is average. A scavenge cost of 7 for +3/+3 is overcosted.

Should be a fungus lizard :p

Okay, the scavenge ability costs a fair deal, but that's like saying the flashback cost of Chainer's Edict is expensive at 7 when the card costs 2 to play. So play this as a 3/3 trample at four mana and let it do its thing. If and when it dies, permanently put its power and toughness onto another creature. Fantastic.