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 2026-06-15 03:04:29)
| Link's Unplaced Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Link's Unplaced Cards: (Generated at 2026-06-15 03:04:29)
Changed subtype.
Removed an ability.
Yeah, I like this version too. The opponent has a genuine choice, between the two payments if they have
mana. I hope it's not too annoying if it keeps coming back, but then your opponent has a decent chance to play round it.
This new version seems like a fun tweak on Mana Leak/Force Spike. I like it.
The Three Tragedies point is interesting, but doesn't quite hold due to the little word "other". As I read it, at the moment, if the target has precisely two cards in hand, you get to choose one for them to discard and they can't do anything about it (they can't even choose to ditch both their cards).
I think 5 is the right cost for this. Wizards seem to be happy to print sorceries at cost N that are "Target opponent chooses whether this is sorcery effect 1 or sorcery effect 2", where both those other sorcery effects can be cost N. Technically it's strictly inferior to both of them because it will always be whichever is less helpful to you... assuming perfect knowledge and strategy on the part of the opponent. See for example Distant Memories vs Concentrate, or Library of Lat-Nam vs Brilliant Plan.
And if they have 2 cards it's a targeted discard. AND you can use it on yourself (if, um, you reallly need a madness trigger? Or want to reanimate an eldrazi?)
So yeah, quite a lot of nice flexibility and interest.
In a card I wouldn't run in any deck because it costs five and doesn't win the game. But it can't really cost much less (mayyybe 4?)
Correction. I forgot that if your opponent only has one spell in hand, this turns into Mind Peel with the buyback always active. Hmm...
Three Tragedies would suggest that this isn't powerful enough, since your opponent would always have the option of turning this into that spell. (Okay, you do get a peek in their hand in the process... but outside of that.)
Humm, five is expensive enough that you're very rarely going to hit them with more than one card in hand. Still, it has to be expensive because it's targeted. (At a cost of 5 you can probably drop the 'non land' even, though I guess keeping a single land in hand gives them a way to be rid of this ongoing pain.)
Seems fair, maybe even overcosted.
I was trying to make a black version of Spell Extortion, but this probably just a fair effect without a high mana cost, or even with one, really. Maybe I would make it a straighter parallel and have it ask for a mana payment.
Changed the name.
I don't think "making" them pay
is bad, since they have the choice not to, at least at that time. Also, for the same mana cost, Mana Leak forces 
more mana. So... perhaps it's okay. I guess I would need to test it.
Well, coming back to hand makes it quite a lot better better than Force Spike, but it costs more so that's probably ok.
It usually makes your opponent have to pay 2 - which is pretty darn good for u1, but then, they can choose to pay only one. Hmmm.
I think that's where I'd cost it.
At 2u I'd want it back to being
per again.
Does this version seem better, or worse? Should it cost
?
That would be the gotcha I happen own, yeah ;) (Unlike the pitmage though, you're still looking at spending 3 or 6 at activation time - which means you've forgone casting your own win the game spell...)
The discussion reminds me of Disruptive Pitmage.
I like Vitenka's point.
Yeah - pay one extra is an awesome trick; it's a lot less good if your opponent knows it is coming. (And even as a trick, it's not that often you get to use it to best advantage)
Back to hand, rather than shuffling into deck would make the card better - but the second casting your opponent knows it is coming, and it's still not as good as flat out "Counter target spell"
Mind you, it DOES have the built in trick of "Ah, you paid 4 to be rid of it forever, smart. Ok, I cast my second one now you don't have 2 untapped...."
So I think I could get behind that version.
I was going to comment on my enchantment, and claim it fair, but I didn't want to warp an honest first appraisal from other people. It seems worse than Stone Rain, for what it's worth, and only gets better when it's controller has access to
... at which point, the opponent probably has 
...
But, yet, you're right. In fact, now that I look at it again, I notice that it is missing the line "Do not announce that you have cast ~. When this is on the battlefield, it hides in your hand."
It's not quite the same, since could be gotten rid of by all of the colors, and spells are much easier to deal with than abilities. I think that enchantment might be fair, though. That's a big mana investment that basically amounts to "some of your opponents spells cost more."
Hmm... tricky. I suppose that depends on whether you think this card is fair...
Example card for purposes of determing fairness
: Counter target spell, unless that spells controller pays 
.
Enchantment
What if it went to the hand instead? That was my original idea, but I feared it would be too good. What if I made it cost
, reduced the payments to 
, and made it return to the hand unless?
Mmm. Seems like this wants to be a counterspell that's okay early on, but spectacular later. Trying to make one that isn't convoluted is kind of tricky. I keep wanting to send it off to Veredictum's set "Evolution". Make it a hard counter, cost it at
and give it "Curve 4 — (If you cast this spell on a player’s fourth turn, it gains this effect.) Shuffle ~ into your library." Of course, that's straying a bit far from the original design...