Link's Unplaced Cards: Recent Activity
| Link's Unplaced Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Link's Unplaced Cards: (Generated at 2026-08-24 21:35:35)
| Link's Unplaced Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Link's Unplaced Cards: (Generated at 2026-08-24 21:35:35)
This was pretty much intended to just be a conversation piece, and it looks like it succeeded. Obviously, in a red deck, you could only use this as a finisher, but you could also splash it in an aggro deck that was mainly a different color. At the very least, it's an interesting card.
Wouldn't it sometimes be a bad idea to use this on a "not an opponent" in a multiplayer game, since eventually it could come down to just being the two of you? Then you'd be screwed if you were mono-red.
Crap. On occasion my laptop flips out and does four things in random succession, forcing me to lose my previous comment. Most times, CTRL-Z fixes it, but not this time. I miss the old laptops that had a mouse that popped out the side. Ah well.
Truth is, losing my comments was a good idea because I kept contradicting myself. I like this card, but my mind made giant leaps as to what it did when I half-read it. I thought it granted Protection from Red to any player until end of turn. It doesn't. I can't help thinking that would be a more fun card - stopping Fireballs by hitting yourself aside the head first.
But let's not talk about that, let's talk about this. I'm not sure if Wizards would print something like this, purely because of group game formats where you have 'opponents' who aren't really opponents. My own play group plays a lot of 'secret agenda' Magic. If I cast this on an 'opponent' who is clearly not an opponent, I can give him Protection from Red forever. That's crazy.
Other than that, this card may not be powerful enough? It's hard to say. Surely, there aren't any cards that deal 4 to a player for
, but I think the reason they don't do that is less because it's too powerful, and more because "They don't wanna." The drawback is incredibly powerful, and simultaneously has no value. Obviously, you play SfP when you plan to kill someone. It's a bit like a Legendary Instant, in that casting multiples does nothing.
My head keeps spinning around the card. It's quite the puzzler, and you sure got the rarity down right. I'm going to stop worrying about it and start liking it. If it encourages me to write whole articles about it, then it is, at the very least, a good conversation piece, which makes it a good card in my book.
I feel the red cards in my cycles are always weak. I didn't want to do the obvious and have this deal damage, and looting was too close to Wind Totem, so I wound up with... this. There's nothing particularly red about this ability, but nothing that says red can't get it either. Either way, this card seems off and needs some work.
Changed wording.
Forgot type.. oops.
This isn't really part of the cycle with Earth Totem, Light Totem, Fire Totem, Shadow Totem, and Wind Totem, but it does function similarly.
I'm unsure about the power level of this, Earth Totem, and Wind Totem.
I agree, I don't see why Howling Mine needs to be blue; something so symmetrical feels like it ought to be able to be white.
I approve of this planeswalker.
Both green and white get some card draw, and together they often have a sense of unity or community. I would think that they should be allowed to have this effect. It actually makes more sense to me than white-blue.
:)
That's okay. The name mostly brings up images of Luck Dragons and Ogre-sized Grandmothers.
The name is now taken by Spirit Away in Avacyn Restored. Shoot.
Actually, I like the idea of the two then two loyalty counters. maybe not on this card, because it does distract. But the idea of a Planeswalker that can immediately Ultimate, but it takes a lot out of her, like a normal ulimate... probably for another card. Something more red.
+2 will shoot this card out of take down range, it's true. I'm a fan of Planewalkers costing more, anyway. I like goofy 6cc Planeswalkers... I don't know why everybody keeps designing 3cc ones. People keep trying to make their cards playable. grumble grumble
I fear I have to point out now that the "each player draw two cards" is out of flavor. I would think that Green and White would be able to figure out how to do that together, but the color pie disagrees with me.
Shifted from white/blue to green/white. Name, CMC, and loyalty cost changes pending.
Now that I think about it, she would fit better overall as a
planeswalker.
Are you joking about the ability changes? Because I feel like that would make a really annoying, very hard-to-be rid of planeswalker. More so than she already is. And why "remove two loyalty counters?" That seems so inelegant.
It is pretty strong. And not really white-blue. That's a green ability.
All these twos make me want more twos. Personally, I think you should change all the +1s to +2, switch out the third ability for something flavor appropriate that requires a +2, and change the last ability to a -2, and follow the ultimate's text with "...then remove two loyalty counters from ~." This all may require updating the casting cost.
?
I love that she has so many twos, but I do wonder if the second ability is too strong.
What about the third ability? Is that too strong?
Hah. Nicely done sir.
...not to have the silly conversation in Spirit Away take from your comments over here in Tax Collector land.
The idea's fun, but, as you pointed out, parasitic. I actually had a different impression of the card when I first saw it. I didn't feel that it got the flavor of tax collection down perfectly. I mean, if a card's going to go out there and extend itself for a strange parasitic mechanic, it might as well ask for it in as forced and contrived a manner as possible. ;)
While my head is floating around 25% taxation rates and 1.5% APR, I accidentaly came up with a playable mechanic:
"When ~ enters the battlefield, gain control of target land, as long as its controller controls at least five lands."
It is with some regret, that if this card existed in the real world, that it would need a clause that said "If a player controls one hundred or more lands, he may ignore this ability."
Well, yes... I kind of assumed you'd have to change the first part to "Name a non-basic permanent..." as well. It'd be kind of silly to ask for card names, then look for permanent names.