Because TGU.
Cool, I like it. Except it does have some errata errors. There needs to be a colon in-between the cost and the effect. And you need to reword it. Let me go look the correct wording up and get back to you.
Besides that, 8/10. Solid card.
Cool, I like it. Except it does have some errata errors. There needs to be a colon in-between the cost and the effect. And you need to reword it. Let me go look the correct wording up and get back to you.
Besides that, 8/10. Solid card.
Thanks!
No problemo.
The wording should just be "Search your Library for a Redeemed Merfolk and put it onto the battlefield tapped." Don't quote me on it, but that should be the wording.
While I'm not sure on the wording, the cost should be labelled as "BG, [T]:"
Calling it a Merfolk and it not being a Merfolk also seems very, very weird. "Horror" definitely fits as a creature type, just it doesn't seem much like a Merfolk to be called one. Looks more like a Treefolk that drowned...
The ability itself is actually pretty weak, since there's no other ability or synergy in having multiples out. Instead, it seems like a card that serves functionally no use whatsoever. If it was a bigger creature, then tutoring up more would make more sense and give it a real use. I'd gladly pay 3BG to have a card that had like 1BG, [T]: Fetch another, with 4/4 stats, or maybe a 3/3 and each of them get +1/+1 for each other creature with the same name in play.
I agree with Borderline's comments about the extra synergy needed to make this playable. In sealed it might be cute I suppose, but in limited it would do virtually nothing and I'm not really sure about the constructed applications here either. Also, I agree it shouldn't be called a merfolk if it isn't a merfolk. It could be a Merfolk Horror provided it had appropriate art.
And the wording would actually need to be, "BG, T: Search your library for a card named ~ and put it onto the battlefield tapped."
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users