Infinite Potential Well: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | Planets and Gravity | Merge Gates | Madness

CardName: Group Consensus Cost: W Type: Instant Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: If you control five or more creatures, draw three cards. Otherwise, draw a card. Flavour Text: "So, have we come to an agreement? Wonderful! Then here's the plan..." Set/Rarity: Infinite Potential Well Uncommon

Group Consensus
If you control five or more creatures, draw three cards. Otherwise, draw a card.
"So, have we come to an agreement? Wonderful! Then here's the plan..."
Created on 08 May 2012 by dude1818

History: [-]

2012-05-08 00:52:58: dude1818 created the card Group Consensus

Wow. That's very good. Much cheaper than Distant Melody, and although you only get half the effect, it's not tribally-restricted. The name is the only thing making it not a blue card.

Does white get this kind of card draw based on creatures? Seems more green or, as you say, blue. So, ok, it's a conditional (on being a token deck), with cycling. And only costs {w}. The condition is pretty easy to meet in a white soldier deck, so I'd say far too good.

I'm not sure. Green gets card drawing based on power, so it seems to make sense that white would get card drawing based on number of creatures. I agree it (or any card drawing) could be blue. I think it's a question of "should white weenie decks get super card drawing"? And I'm not sure, but they probably deserve it as much as blue weenie decks.

I find it interesting to compare this card to Thoughtcast. Obviously, there are too many variable there to make a proper comparison, but, when I squint, I see similar cards.

It is true that any deck that packs enough creatures should auto-play this. One casting cost cantrips happen, but they often come with a minor effect. Let's put it another way... if this card read:

Burning is Fundamental
Draw a card. Then, if you control seven lands, deal 4 damage to target creature or player.

Would you play that card? Because I would be all over that thing like a pig on truffles. It looks fair, because there's parity and all, but, really you don't have to work for it. If you don't have the land, you can just cycle it for a cost that you're bound to have within any three rounds. If you do have it, kaboom, pure card advantage. Five creatures is alot... but for some decks, it's standard procedure.

Casting cost aside, I don't really have a problem with the color. Others will. As far as I'm concerned, all colors should be allowed to draw cards as long as its tied to their mechanic. Drawing cards is fun, and the color pie is wrong for thinking otherwise. ­

Add your comments:

(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
What is this card's power? Rumbling Baloth
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)