[GTC-ICD] Fortress Cyclops

12 posts / 0 new
Last post


Fortress Cyclops
Creature - Cyclops Soldier
Whenever Fortress Cyclops attacks, it
get +3/+0 until end of turn.
Whenever Fortress Cylops blocks, it
get +0/+3 until end of turn.
                                            3/3
"They think they tamed him, but he will
always be a wild titan, a force of nature."
-Nedja, Gruul shaman

Seems fun, like the flavor, but I woulda preferred a Hill Giant with bonuses
A cyclops in Boros? How unexpected. And he's the second cyclops seen in either Ravnica or RTR after Big Borb, if I'm not mistaken.

A 6/3 on your turn and a 3/6 on opponents' doesn't seem too bad. He's another card for Glory of Warfare decks alongside Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran, Nobilis of War, and Scourge of the Nobilis. Although, at 5 cmc he pales in comparison to Agrus and the Nobilis.

seems ok but not really much more than that.
Totally ok.
DILBIC

GW

Cookie Count: 1 million + 1039 Wooden Spoon Count: 2 YMtC Trophies 1st: 9 2nd: 11 3rd: 13 4th: 4 I lost >6000 posts during the last forum migration. #14000th post at 05/11/09 #15000th post at 22/02/10 #16000th post at 10/06/10 #17000th post at 27/10/10 #18000th post at 27/04/11 #19000th post at 24/08/11 #20000th post at 21/04/12 #21000th post at 21/01/13
Ok
A cyclops plucked from the clans by Boros and trained to be a legionnaire? Interesting flavor.

Aside from that, he's nothing special.
My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
Meh. In limited, he's playable. In constructed, I'd prefer something with more reliability or depth perception or something.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Flowstone Charger is back and he's beefy and weird!
Looks pretty bad.

Check out my twitch.tv stream below where I play magic online limited queues. Don't forget to follow if you enjoy what I'm presenting to show your support!

http://twitch.tv/dpg20__

 

If I'm boros, I'd certainly pick it up.  6/3 on the attack, and by turn 5 you should have a few other guys out.  Give him a battalion first strike and watch him dominate the board.
This guy is better than most people think.

How do you get past this guy (sans flying) in combat.
Plus he'll probably be a 2-for-1 on the attack.

"We wlll kill them all."

Sign In to post comments