This card belongs in the Abyss!!! Sure it can get rid of that pesky white knight but it will probably hurt you more than your opponent.
xStrikerx
★★★★☆ (4.6/5.0)(16 votes)
If this hurts you more than your opponent, either you have it in the wrong deck or you're using it wrong.
Aaron_Forsythe
★★★★☆ (4.6/5.0)(25 votes)
Aaron's Random Card Comment of the Day #28, 11/3/10
This is a pretty sweet card that I don’t think we’ve gotten proper mileage out of over the years. It’s simple to understand yet somewhat difficult to utilize maximally, has reasonable flavor, and is well costed. Great common, yet it has never been reprinted save an appearance in Duel Decks: Divine vs. Demonic.
This card seems to be as good as any to talk about the removal of goofball creatures types (like “Gatekeeper” and “Uncle Istvan”) from Oracle. It was done as part of a long, lengthy process (that still gets argued about in R&D from time to time) that streamlined all creature types into larger chunks so that “tribal” cards would be more compatible with older stuff, reprinted stuff would be consistent with new stuff, and all kinds of other philosophical stuff that I’m sure Randy Buehler, Mark Gottlieb, and myself have written about extensively on the website. Yes, “Gatekeeper” and “Uncle Istvan” are more flavorful in that they are more uniquely desçriptive, but they fail to categorize in a meaningful way. From a rules perspective they might as well be blank. Having cards work with other cards is upside. (And if you are saddened because you liked naming “Gatekeeper” with Volrath's Laboratory or Artificial Evolution or Proteus Machine or whatever, and now you supposedly can’t, go ahead and name it. Unless you’re at a sanctioned event, no one will punish you for dredging up an old type.)
One last comment on Abyssal Gatekeeper--its flavor text is absurd. Gerrard is facing a horrifying, inhuman, otherworldly guardian of some unearthly portal, and he’s essentially trash-talking it. “Oh yeah? Big deal. I punch it in the head.” It reminds me of role-playing sessions with my brother’s middle school friends.
Always loved the word abyssal. Its just so evocative.
oldtimer96
★★★★☆ (4.4/5.0)(7 votes)
Re: flavor text. It is only a 1/1. It probably wasn't as intimidating to Gerrard as the art makes it look.
willpell
★★★☆☆ (3.0/5.0)(5 votes)
I can't believe Aaron didn't mention the ridiculous attempt at getting rid of the term "sacrifice" which occurs in the printed text of this and a few other cards in the Weatherlight set, replacing it with "choose and bury" (later they opted to get rid of "bury" instead since it just meant "destroy" unless regeneration was involved). I think at one point, one of the rules managers actually reverted these cards to their printed wording, so that you could choose an indestructible creature and it wouldn't be destroyed! This is why rules templaters and similar individuals who say "well, TECHNICALLY" a lot make my head explode; they do the exact opposite of the obviously correct thing because they get hung up on silly details that don't matter.
Also, I like the flavor text here. Gerrard was supposed to be a tough guy, and this text makes him sound like one, more successfully than most of his quotes. He's supposed to be scared of this thing? It's a 1/1! Giant bugs with human faces are hardly that big of a deal in fantasy land; I've seen more horrible stuff IRL without quaking in my boots. If the intention was to suggest that Gerrard should have been scared of this thing, then the artist didn't get the memo any more than the FT writer.
jinxedidol
★★★★☆ (4.2/5.0)(3 votes)
I put this in my jinxed idol deck, with Flashbag Marauder for maximum edict effects. The deck can handle the attrition with Reassembling Skeleton and the old school combination of nether shadow and ashen ghoul.
Its a pretty delicate card, but has a unique black effect on a small package.
ProfN
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(1 vote)
This card is a staple in my EDH black decks. It's spectacular for cheap early defense and defense vs. Eldrazi with annihilator. When paired with a Grave Pact or Butcher of Malakir things just get completely silly. Makeshift Mannequining this thing is also quite fun. :)
ChampionofSquee
★★★☆☆ (3.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Combo with Innocent Blood and Grave Pact you sac two creatures, they sac 4 and if you use your last sac on something like Perilous Myr you can damage them too.
tavaritz
★★☆☆☆ (2.5/5.0)(1 vote)
Funny thing: WoTC says that 'bury' was confusing and removed from the terminology because of that. Now they introduced 'dies' which means 'is destroyed' for creatures. Why isn't that confusing?
Tanaka348
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(1 vote)
@tavaritz: Because bury could either mean "sacrifice" or "destroy, can't be regenerated". And, importantly, there was no indication which it was.
blurrymadness
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
@Taravits Untrue. Dies means to "enter the graveyard from the battlefield", which can be done without being destroyed. Destroying a creature (via damage or otherwise) is only one way to cause "dies."
To the card, the card is beautiful black control. Need to stall a bit? Put this, SmallPox, and other similar cards into a deck. No one will like you, but you'll have a good time :D
Comments (13)
This is a pretty sweet card that I don’t think we’ve gotten proper mileage out of over the years. It’s simple to understand yet somewhat difficult to utilize maximally, has reasonable flavor, and is well costed. Great common, yet it has never been reprinted save an appearance in Duel Decks: Divine vs. Demonic.
This card seems to be as good as any to talk about the removal of goofball creatures types (like “Gatekeeper” and “Uncle Istvan”) from Oracle. It was done as part of a long, lengthy process (that still gets argued about in R&D from time to time) that streamlined all creature types into larger chunks so that “tribal” cards would be more compatible with older stuff, reprinted stuff would be consistent with new stuff, and all kinds of other philosophical stuff that I’m sure Randy Buehler, Mark Gottlieb, and myself have written about extensively on the website. Yes, “Gatekeeper” and “Uncle Istvan” are more flavorful in that they are more uniquely desçriptive, but they fail to categorize in a meaningful way. From a rules perspective they might as well be blank. Having cards work with other cards is upside. (And if you are saddened because you liked naming “Gatekeeper” with Volrath's Laboratory or Artificial Evolution or Proteus Machine or whatever, and now you supposedly can’t, go ahead and name it. Unless you’re at a sanctioned event, no one will punish you for dredging up an old type.)
One last comment on Abyssal Gatekeeper--its flavor text is absurd. Gerrard is facing a horrifying, inhuman, otherworldly guardian of some unearthly portal, and he’s essentially trash-talking it. “Oh yeah? Big deal. I punch it in the head.” It reminds me of role-playing sessions with my brother’s middle school friends.
Also, I like the flavor text here. Gerrard was supposed to be a tough guy, and this text makes him sound like one, more successfully than most of his quotes. He's supposed to be scared of this thing? It's a 1/1! Giant bugs with human faces are hardly that big of a deal in fantasy land; I've seen more horrible stuff IRL without quaking in my boots. If the intention was to suggest that Gerrard should have been scared of this thing, then the artist didn't get the memo any more than the FT writer.
Its a pretty delicate card, but has a unique black effect on a small package.
Untrue. Dies means to "enter the graveyard from the battlefield", which can be done without being destroyed. Destroying a creature (via damage or otherwise) is only one way to cause "dies."
To the card, the card is beautiful black control. Need to stall a bit? Put this, SmallPox, and other similar cards into a deck. No one will like you, but you'll have a good time :D