Not terrible. But you get set back a turn when you play it. Of course, blue has to pay {3}{U} for a 3/2 flyer(see: Snapping Drake).
land_comment
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.6/5.0)(4 votes)
Ewwwwwwwww! What's that smell?
Fert12334
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
Ugh, sometimes i really hate the oracle wording. Destroying one of your lands and sacrificing one of your lands are two completely different things. For example, this could easily be combo-ed with Darksteel Citadel to avoid the loss of a land. Not like that breaks the card or anything, but it is changed by the new wording.
Anyways - about the card as it is, losing a land for a 3/2 flier doesn't seem worth it for 3 mana considering how much it's going to set you back. Well, at least it has a somewhat useful creature type.
2.5/5
Henrietta
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
This was from Portal, which didn't have the exact same rules as other sets as it was an introductory product. The intent was that you would lose one of your lands, period.
Dragasm
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I hate the oracle some times. It says destroy on the card, and yes the meaning for destroy wasn't quite so relevant when this was printed, but come on WOTC, it still says destroy!
Comments (6)
Anyways - about the card as it is, losing a land for a 3/2 flier doesn't seem worth it for 3 mana considering how much it's going to set you back. Well, at least it has a somewhat useful creature type.
2.5/5