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 2026-05-01 04:28:33)
| Link's Unplaced Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Link's Unplaced Cards: (Generated at 2026-05-01 04:28:33)
I have a few questions about this.
1. Is this the proper wording?
2. How powerful is this? It needs constant fuel, and will need two spells a turn unless you have multicolor cards. Should it also trigger on abilities?
3. Should this produce colored mana?
Obviously, the power of level of these needs to be balanced.
This is obviously dangerous, because it fuels itself. The other cards in the (potential) cycle, like Woodland Stronghold, will at least peter out without assistance.
Perhaps 7 mana could be acceptable, but for right now I've put it at 8.
Heehee. It's the reverse of my ((C4602)). SadisticMystic was the one to point out all the problems there too.
I think if this were 8 mana, all the listed issues wouldn't be problematic. It'd still be an awesome EDH card, but not as good as Bribery, where at 6 mana this is too much better than Bribery.
Out of curiosity, can you pull things out of a set aside game and drag them into the subgame? Is the subgame in a different zone? Is that zone technically Exile? Can you Pull from Eternity a card in the main game and throw it in your opponent's graveyard during the sub-game?
Edit: Curious, I looked it up. 506.1a seems to infer that no, none of that applies, that the sub-game and the regular game do not 'see' each other in any way, and that a new set of zones is created for the sub-game. If you played Enter the Dungeon on me, however, I'd let you get away with it. ;)
Clearly, this does naughty things, most of which I was aware of when I made it. Would these things be less bad/ more acceptable if it cost more to cast, or if it targeted only opponents?
Bribery is seen as an abusively good card. For one additional mana, you get several more options...
- targeting yourself (because you have a lot more control over the creatures you include in your own deck)
- dropping something in from the hand (a la Dramatic Entrance; say you planned on fetching out Emrakul but you accidentally drew it first--not a problem! You could also hit the opponent's hand, but that's almost a non-factor.)
- saving something from exile in a much more impactful way than Riftsweeper or Pull from Eternity ever could
- Dominate, with X = a really big number, the ability to bypass shroud, hexproof, and protection, and you don't lock in the choice until resolution so the opponent can't make it fizzle without getting rid of ALL of their guys
- Body Double
- and hey, if you're ever playing for ante and face the prospect of potentially losing a valuable creature, why not just plunk it straight onto the board? Kind of like Jeweled Bird, only the opponent doesn't even get to play for a card of modest value.
I know that the situation would hardly ever come up, I just wondered if those situations should matter.
Someone would have to respond to it with flash, and you'd have to have announced the stack before they did so (it being a sorcery) so barring Orrery shenanigans; it's probably not a problem.
Is it way too weird that this searches the stack?
I think whether or not it would actually say changeling might depend on the set and whether it had changeling.
Made the wording more concise.
I would have said "that's all creature types and all colours", although I agree Crib Swap suggests it's better to say "changeling".
Hmm, it's a bit tricky to phrase the "all colours" part, isn't it? By analogy with Godsire and Crib Swap, I think your wording's pretty close, actually. Perhaps it should read "Put a 1/1 Shapeshifter creature token with changeling that's all colours onto the battlefield."
I like the idea of a land that's boosting advanced creatures, but I think it'd be fine to restrict it to spells that you cast.
Made RWU. Those colors seemed appropriate for color-bleaching and cost reduction.
I dropped the rarity. Is token-making ability phrased correctly? I didn't know how else to write the "all colors" part.
It's supposed to be flavorful, but maybe I failed there, or maybe it needs a better name. As a place of advanced culture, it's giving a discount to more "advanced" creatures.
The first ability is better than adding one mana, since it applies to all creature spells you cast. Not only will that sometimes/often provide more than one "mana" per turn, it leaves the land open to use its second ability while still providing the cost reduction effect. You're possibly right, though, that it could just apply to its controller.
Fixed a misspelled word. How embarrassing.
It's really a kind of awkward restriction. I'd guess that well over half the creatures today have 2 or more creature types. The really weird part is the types of creatures that are most commonly not getting the bonus: Angels, Demons, Elementals, Beasts, Kraken, Serpent, Wurm and Dragons are but all expensive creatures. Instead, awkwardly, this is giving it's bonus to Goblins, Elves and Humans. Maybe that still makes sense. After all, if this was reversed, you'd need two dragons in play to give the bonus to your other dragons...
Also, I'd argue that you probably don't need the 'helps your opponent' parity on this card. The first ability isn't even "
: Add 
to your mana pool. You may only use this mana on creatures." and that might be weak enough to slap a false Vitu-Ghazi on this thing.
Also: Misspelled 'ore'.
The token making on this is theoretically better than Vitu-Ghazi, the City-Tree, since the creatures can go in any tribal deck and the colorless cost allows it to do the same thing. Does the fact that the cheapening effect applies to your opponent as well balance this effect, or should it cost
? Or perhaps some colored mana?
Scratch that, I'm just doing it. It would be weird for two legends to have the exact same ability.