Not especially bad, but red has no shortage of either 2/1 or 2/2-with-drawback creatures for two mana, and this does little to distinguish itself against the others.
BrutalJim
★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0)(13 votes)
Looks like someone put cocaine in the dog food
vosrevesrevers
★★☆☆☆ (2.4/5.0)(5 votes)
i don't understand the balance of the cards in this hound cycle. why do green and white get 2/2 creatures for 2 with often amazing abilities (wild mongrel) and the other colors have absolutely awful drawbacks? (phantom whelp is possibly one of the worst blue creatures ever)
A3Kitsune
★★★★☆ (4.1/5.0)(5 votes)
Really should have had "Mad Dog attacks each turn if able."
Tevish_Szat
★★☆☆☆ (2.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Bears with drawbacks are usually bad, but you have to remember this little puppy is from Odyssey, where graveyards mattered. In that set, being able to just sacrifice your early attacker for Threshold fodder when you no longer need it might be important. Still, not a good card: there are plenty of ways to kill your own creatures without resorting to "Attack with me or I die" as a strategy. And really, you're going to attack into overwhelming power if you want it dead anyway, and might get damage through if your opponent thinks you're up to something, so what's the point?
blindthrall
★☆☆☆☆ (1.9/5.0)(7 votes)
This card should be a 20/20. If you don't know what I mean, you haven't truly lived.
land_comment
★★☆☆☆ (2.7/5.0)(3 votes)
Not very good. The text reads wrong, too.
Progle
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(2 votes)
It is only good if your going to attack with it.
divine_exodus
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(2 votes)
U mad bro?
Goatllama
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
He wants to bury his bone in your ass.
DarthParallax
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
actually, I'm going to stand up for this card.
it's not powerful, it's weak, I'll grant.
but listen--
a) It's a Common. b) Designing for Limited is in the first place a questionable thing to be doing, c) And in the Second Place, hadn't been practiced very much at this point anyway.
This card has a mechanic that simply basically tries to push you to attack with it. I'd say it's honestly not much worse or better than Jackal Pup from a Design perspective, and from a Development perspective as a Common it's not supposed to be too good anyway, it's the Rares that sell packs and the Rares that are going to be the Bomb that wins you the game if you're looking for Bombs.
This pairs very nicely with Glory Seeker in a crude but effective White-Red Aggressive attacking deck.
If this were Uncommon or Rare, it would be more reasonable to want it to be more positive and not negative, but
d) Negative effects breed creative, awesome, broken decks that are a blast to discover.
e) If Commons were allowed to be Worse, then Rares and Mythics wouldn't have to be Broken to be Playable.
Comments (11)
it's not powerful, it's weak, I'll grant.
but listen--
a) It's a Common.
b) Designing for Limited is in the first place a questionable thing to be doing,
c) And in the Second Place, hadn't been practiced very much at this point anyway.
This card has a mechanic that simply basically tries to push you to attack with it. I'd say it's honestly not much worse or better than Jackal Pup from a Design perspective, and from a Development perspective as a Common it's not supposed to be too good anyway, it's the Rares that sell packs and the Rares that are going to be the Bomb that wins you the game if you're looking for Bombs.
This pairs very nicely with Glory Seeker in a crude but effective White-Red Aggressive attacking deck.
If this were Uncommon or Rare, it would be more reasonable to want it to be more positive and not negative, but
d) Negative effects breed creative, awesome, broken decks that are a blast to discover.
e) If Commons were allowed to be Worse, then Rares and Mythics wouldn't have to be Broken to be Playable.
f) Just Think of it as a Red Bears.