Archester Revival: Recent Activity

Archester Revival: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity

Mechanics | Skeleton

Recent updates to Archester Revival: (Generated at 2025-07-01 17:33:29)

• 2015-10-02 06:39:37: Raptor1210_ commented on Mechanical Rat

  Would this be better as a 1/1 deathtouch similar to Typhoid Rats rather than as a less painful Carnophage?

• 2015-10-02 06:27:59: Raptor1210_ commented on Eureka Moment

  I agree, it fills the same role as the other card does and potentially limits our ability to create strong components due to the tinker-like effect.

• 2015-10-02 06:24:31: Raptor1210_ commented on Mechanical Horse

  ­Armored Warhorse, which I assume was the inspiration, is a few years old and it doesn't seem to be breaking many records. The tiny benefit of Steampowered probably won't push this too far since it'll cost in that case not .

• 2015-10-02 06:20:28: Raptor1210_ commented on Abusive Industrialization

  ­ draw 2 has been a staple in magic for ages. Look at Divination and counsel of the soratami.

• 2015-10-02 06:14:33: Raptor1210_ commented on Reform

  I compared it to Shatter becuase it share similar design space and suggested Crush as an alternative option since we have quite a bit of Artifact Creatures we might not want dying all the time.

  Besides, this'll never get used on your own stuff, the only circumstance that you might use it on your own thing is if it was going to die anyway so you could get value out of it but that isn't even possible since it's a sorcery. As it is right now, you can either: 1) 2 for 1 yourself to get a pair dinky Thopters or 2) 3 for 1 yourself and give your opponent a pair dinky Thopters. Neither is an ideal solution and both feel kinda bad. If it were an instant it'd be cute for the removal interaction but at the moment it can't do anything to mitigate removal so it just kinda falls flat.

  If you're looking for a trap for newbies this current card is it, becuase it looks "ok" on paper but it probably won't work in practice.

• 2015-10-02 04:16:39: Volvary commented on Backpedal

  How would you guys feel about adding a Reconnaissance clause to this card?

• 2015-10-02 04:12:13: Volvary commented on Abusive Industrialization

  So, you draw 2 cards, flush all lands and draw back that many lands? Seems rather clunky. "Reveal your hand and discard all land cards revealed this way. Then draw that many cards plus two." makes a bit more sense. Even tho i'm not keen on give draw two for 3 mana without a condition. I could also think about 1U "Draw two cards, then reveal your hand and discard all land cards revealed this way."

• 2015-10-02 04:06:32: Volvary commented on Mechanical Horse

  Are we sure we want to give a 2/3 for 2 to white?

• 2015-10-02 04:04:46: Volvary commented on Ainok Outfitter

  Seconding the motion, attaching to whatever makes it clunky and weird.

• 2015-10-02 04:03:23: Volvary commented on Eureka Moment

  Although this and the Fetcher does not occupy the same slot in the set, they do however occupy the same niche so I would be very surprised it makes it to the set with the creature.

• 2015-10-02 03:14:41: grimGrendel commented on Reform

  This cannot compare to shatter; it is a split card that doubles as removal and threats. Seems fairly well costed. Not sure I get why you want it as a Crush effect though

• 2015-10-02 02:53:46: Raptor1210_. commented on Reform

  I feel like Shatter makes this cry in a corner. I think it'd be better as Crush+Dragon Fodder with the Goblins replaced by Thopters.

• 2015-10-02 01:14:21: Visitor commented on Power Redistribution

  Yeah we recently got an "exile target permanent" card in BFZ but that's been around in colorless for a while, Lux Cannon, Spine of ish sah, ulamog are over 6 years old and set a fairly clear precedent for vindicate in colorless. Bounce has no similar (recent) precedent.

  Ps this is raptor.

• 2015-10-01 23:23:16: grimGrendel commented on Power Redistribution

  Artifacts can do anything, albeit not efficiently. Revoke Existence now exists at 7, so I would not have any problem printing a "bounce permanent" at five (which is one half of Void squall and Silent departure). That is inefficient enough I think. I would value a colorless bounce permanent at around 4.4 cmc, so adding any kind of slight drawback could make it priced appropriately.

  Or, we just go for inefficient but elegant "1 Bounce target permanent (land included)"

• 2015-10-01 22:22:54: Raptor1210_. commented on Power Redistribution

  Unless I've missed my guess, I'm pretty sure that the "Unless its controller pays " part of both Crystal Shard and Erratic Portal has more to do with them being repeatable sources of "Bounce" effect rather than "Bounce unless you pay N." being the original intent.

  I'm not sure if those cards mean Bouncing in general is kosher in Artifacts or not and that's what has me worried.

• 2015-10-01 10:46:48: grimGrendel commented on Power Redistribution

  Would it be better if it was "Bounce unless that permanent's controller pays 1-2"? I would lean toward 2 for the price to pay in that case

• 2015-10-01 05:29:14: Raptor1210_. commented on Power Redistribution

  Are we sure this fits in the Colorless piece of the Color Pie? (And, yes, I see the irony of asking if Colorless fits in the Color Pie.)

  The only justification I can find (castable purely for colorless) is Erratic Portal but that was in Exodus, over 17 years ago. An Arguement can be made for Crystal Shard being another example but that can also be activated with and is still ~12 years old.

  In any case, are we sure we want such an iconicly blue effect (Bounce) playable in every color?

• 2015-10-01 01:00:25: Raptor1210_. commented on Enraged Artisan

  Actually this should probably be a Crush effect anyway since we don't want Red killing creatures at common too often.

• 2015-10-01 00:58:13: Raptor1210_. commented on Enraged Artisan

  I agree, I'd compare it to Ghirapur Gearcrafter, basically a 3/2 for , this could be a 2/2 + Crush for .

• 2015-10-01 00:57:31: grimGrendel commented on Ainok Outfitter

  Got proven wrong, all in favour of switching to non-component!

• 2015-10-01 00:56:09: grimGrendel commented on Testing Device

  I am in for that

• 2015-10-01 00:54:17: grimGrendel commented on Flight Wire

  Timestamps make it easy to understand. The artifact takes the shape of the latest upgrade, and keeps all abilities regardless of order.

• 2015-10-01 00:53:00: Raptor1210_. commented on Generator Servant*

  O_o I never realized the art of Generator Servant fits with Archester too ... Awesome.

• 2015-10-01 00:50:04: Raptor1210_. commented on Testing Device

  If we change it to an Artifact Creature, it should also reduce Equip cost that target it.

• 2015-10-01 00:48:04: grimGrendel commented on Generator Servant*

  Without WotC being aware of it, Generator servant was made for Archester.

• 2015-10-01 00:47:45: Raptor1210_. commented on Ainok Outfitter

  No, they can't, look at Animation Wire. We specifically worded them so they couldn't attach to other components, because if you could you'd get weird component chains.

  Chains caused confusion about which component was attached to which artifact and we had to add the "Non-Component" header to keep things from getting wonky.

• 2015-10-01 00:46:07: grimGrendel commented on Enraged Artisan

  I would like the card better if there was not such a huge gap in power between hitting and missing, even if hitting is fairly easy in an artifact set. Can't it just get the thopter no matter what, regardless of destroying an artifact or not?

• 2015-10-01 00:43:54: grimGrendel commented on Not That Brand

  I agree that threaten/fire split card should cost at least one more.

• 2015-10-01 00:40:48: grimGrendel commented on Vulturous Aven*

  Solid reprint

• 2015-10-01 00:37:14: grimGrendel commented on Testing Device

  Just as situational as darksteel relic. Should probably cast 0, or for a 1/1