MTG Salvation

I have a feeling that Pharika is going to be good

On one hand, it's not a Nightmare Lash or Lashwrithe. On the other hand it's significantly more useful in Limited for the sheer fact that, as an uncommon, it's slightly more likely for me to get 2-3 of them.

Still, no evasion/rider effects and competition for the 4-drop slot in EDH means this card is Limited fodder at best. Never going to see play even post-rotation.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the horrible grammatical error on the card...

"Squelching Leeches's power..."

I thought they had people who were supposed to catch stuff like that.

Quote from Nionel

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the horrible grammatical error on the card...

"Squelching Leeches's power..."

I thought they had people who were supposed to catch stuff like that.

Because it's not a grammatical error, or at the least, it's an intentional one. That's how Wizards' does possessive for cards that end in an s. Complain to their style guide if you wish, but it's not an error for them.

Squelching Leeches isn't plural. It is a reference to a singular card. It would be my assumption that Squelching Leeches would be treated like a singular proper noun. It doesn't roll off the tongue...err, pen, but it is what it is. Writing out the original post, I wrote it as Squelching Leeches'.

I think it has Standard potential, if only as a 5th not as good but in rare cases better than Desecration Demon card.

The correct way to pluralize a proper name that ends in S is with an apostrophe and a terminal S. The apostrophe alone following the S is appropriate for plurals, but in this context, Squelching Leeches is a proper singular noun, not a plural noun with an adjective in front of it. You wouldn't use "Squelching Leeches' power..." any more than you would say, for example, "Squelching Leeches have intimidate."

Let's not mix reality with fantasy games. Enough with this grammar correction. It's like trying to correct Gollum's grammar in The Lord of the Rings. "Sneaky Little Hobbitses", LOL . It's pretty flavorful if you ask me.

It's got some potential, a 2 mana cheaper flightless Nightmare isn't bad, in a swamp heavy mono black deck this comes down most of the time as a 4/4 for 4 and will only get bigger, meaning at the very least it's a great card if you can force black in limited. That said it's probably not going to be able to compete with Desecration Demon for that slot in current standard, it might be worthwhile in block though and maybe even post-rav rotation standard.

Quote from wallycaine

Quote from Nionel

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the horrible grammatical error on the card...

"Squelching Leeches's power..."

I thought they had people who were supposed to catch stuff like that.

Because it's not a grammatical error, or at the least, it's an intentional one. That's how Wizards' does possessive for cards that end in an s. Complain to their style guide if you wish, but it's not an error for them.

I suppose you're right, just an oversight on my part I guess. I still rolls off the tongue weird and definitely hits the ear wrong when one says it aloud.

Okay, so here's the real question: You open a pack that somehow contains this and Nightmare. Which is the pick?

There has been some pretty gnarly art already in this set.

Could be constructed playable. Sizes up very well against Monsters.

I'd probably play it in a Mono-Black deck post-rotation. It's not the worst topdeck since it gets bigger as the game goes on, and it could be fun with a Whip of Erebos.