• TogetherAlone

    well this is a good limited card…

  • Shawn Michael Diaz

    F%€× your 7/6 hexproof trampler

  • Bobit

    Can’t decide whether this is better than 1/1 deathtouch.

    • Happy The Cat

      well, yeah, it is, cause this can kill 1/1s without trading.

      • Bobit

        But it can’t kill other creatures unless you’re willing to pay an extra mana for it (and, if you are blocking, you opted to leave mana open for it).

        • Chaospyke

          True, but leaving mana open is always a good way to trip up your opponent,
          Plus, when it attacks your opponent will treat it like is deathtouch.

          • Bobit

            That’s why I said, two downsides:

            1) That it effectively costs 2 mana if you wanna give it deathtouch (although paid at different times)

            2) That you need to leave mana open, but only if you’re blocking.

            I don’t think +1 toughness makes up for those.

  • Robert FakeLastName

    my heart stopped when i saw this poor quality touch up.

  • Phoenix UNBENCHED

    Where my nimble navigators at?

  • Evil Tactics

    Ugh, they should just give this the Centipede creature type. Well, I guess for insect decks they don’t mind. But if they’re going to be distinctions between Lizards and Dinosaurs, or Insects, Spiders, and Scorpions, might as well.

    • Hedronal

      Lizards let reptiles be on every plane. Dinosaurs are feathered, and meant to be special beyond what having the type “Lizard” would let them be. Spiders and scorpions don’t have as much of reason though.

      • Evil Tactics

        The gripe is more about common sense than reasons, since everyone knows that centipedes are not insects. While it is obvious why they introduced dinosaurs here as a separate type than lizards (it’s cooler and more appealing), the glaring differences in insects and centipedes are still annoying.

        It would be like using the human subtype for all ape creatures, or squid for octopus, etc.

        • Hedronal

          I feel like you have a far above-average knowledge of centipedes.

          For all types mentioned (barring scorpion imo) there is a reason for it to be mechanically distinct from the others mentioned, even if it is Spiders just being green things known for having reach.

          This isn’t to say that Magic doesn’t have useless type distinctions sometimes, or that they don’t still make them (see Bronze Sable, the only sable in Mtg), but it’s just technicalities.

          • Evil Tactics

            I know, that’s why I’m annoyed, because I know they most likely won’t bother changing it.

            Guess I just had a unique teacher in elementary. It wasn’t so much that he taught us what myriapods are (centipedes and millipedes) but rather the main characteristics of insects (six legs with three main body parts, a head, thorax, and abdomen). That way we wouldn’t get them confused with arachnids (spiders and scorpions) that have eight legs, or other animal types.

            With actual physical distinctions like that though (having 6 legs or 30+ legs), you’d think that would warrant a different creature subtype, instead of throwing in truly useless creature types like Sables, like you pointed out.

          • Hedronal

            The point I’m trying to make though is that there should be less irrelevant creature types, not more. Sable could be a beast pretty easily for instance. In most cases in Mtg insect seems to be used as a catch-all, similar to beast.

            Also this is a game in which six-fingered, detail-obsessive blue people (Vedalken from Kaladesh, oversimplified) were just about unquestioned as normal. I think we shouldn’t expect full accuracy, though it might have been nice. Oh well.

        • Dave

          Centipedes are not insects?

  • Nick Art

    Nice stache. Makes me think it’s some old-timey villain who just tied someone to the train tracks.

    “HON HON HON, YOU SILLY DINO’S WELL NEVER EXPECT ME.”