Steam: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | Setting, Themes, Mechanics

CardName: Fractured Dynamo Cost: 4 Type: Artifact Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Fractured Dynamo enters the battlefield tapped. {T}: Add {3} to your mana pool. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Steam Common

Fractured Dynamo
{4}
 
 C 
Artifact
Fractured Dynamo enters the battlefield tapped.

{t}: Add {3} to your mana pool.
Updated on 18 Feb 2016 by DrugsForRobots

History: [-]

Hm, this is strictly worse than Ur-Golem's Eye, which was itself strictly worse than Thran Dynamo. Palladium Myr is quite a lot better than this as well.

2010-12-31 00:42:12: Alex commented on Fractured Dynamo
2010-12-31 00:42:12: Alex commented on Fractured Dynamo

Was: Fractured Dynamo {4} Fractured Dynamo enters the battlefield tapped. ­{t}: Add {2} to your mana pool.

How about now?

2010-12-31 02:59:18: DrugsForRobots commented on Fractured Dynamo
2010-12-31 02:59:18: DrugsForRobots commented on Fractured Dynamo
2011-01-02 03:36:24: DrugsForRobots edited Fractured Dynamo

Seems reasonable to me. Equivalent to Explosive Vegetation but giving 3 instead of CC. You still need to decide how much mana production you want in common, it may be too much even though the card itself isn't too powerful or complicated.

Jack: Remember the exploding vegetables were uncommon though. Actually, Ur-Golem's Eye is pretty unusual as a common that could give even two mana.

That said, this could be printable at common, but only if accelerating to big mana is one of the things you want to allow to happen a lot in Limited. And there'd need to be something to do with the big mana in Limited, or else it'd be just cruel printing this.

Wait, you put an artifact in your core set at common?

As for Limited, I'm sure I'll figure something out. Personally, I play the game for fun, not really tournaments or anything. Plus, if I were a designer, then I'd just let development would work it out, consider it's impact in Limited, Standard, etc.

Well, I do. I don't know about Wizards or the others here. It seems to me that people think that commons can't be good, that commons have to be bad to some degree to make the uncommons better and the rares look amazing. I disagree with this, a common can still be common and good provided it is balanced, and exemplifies what its color/type does. Lone Missionary, Lightning Bolt, Aether Adept, etc.

If anyone claims commons can't be good, then they're trolling or have badly misunderstood the purpose of rarity. But there has been a principle in recent years that core sets don't have artifacts at common, which is what I assume PMega's referring to.

If they have then I really haven't noticed. What about the signets from Ravinica? Boros Signet, and it's company.

Also, I might have neglected to mention it but this set is entirely artifacts.

When I said "core set", I meant the sets like 10th Edition and Magic 2010. Wizards are very happy to put artifacts at common in expansion sets, both large and small: see e.g. Adventuring Gear. So yeah, there's nothing to worry about.

2011-02-15 18:28:13: DrugsForRobots edited Fractured Dynamo

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? Hollowhenge Beast
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)