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 2025-12-01 19:01:45)
| Link's Unplaced Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Link's Unplaced Cards: (Generated at 2025-12-01 19:01:45)
This would be very hard to deal with, I think. Perhaps too hard, especially for the cost. Spot removal wouldn't work at all once the enchantment was empowered.
The intent is for the player to be forced to pay the empower cost when it enters and empower a creature, or it will be sacrificed. However, this was cumbersome to word, so hopefully players will figure out they have to respond to the sacrifice by empowering a creature. (That does work, right?) I sort of wonder if there's a point to this card being a land, other than that I find it interesting.
It's an enchantment land. I actually really like this concept and will probably use it again later. You can empower other types of permanents, too, but it would be mostly creatures and enchantments.
I dislike static abilities on planeswalkers, but I do find this concept vaguely interesting.
Thanks.
Mmm, nice take on the effect.
Point taken. :)
There already is a white version, called Evangelize. In fact, all colors have creature stealing but Green, as far as I know.
A more likely take on Nature's Own.
Increase power and toughness, and remove abilities is an option. One of my original ideas was to give the creature defender and turn it into a plant. Problem is, you can argue anything in the color pie is legit if you just change the cards you are working around. Gain control could be White if you also gave the creature Lifelink and Vigilance and called it an angel. It could be red if you turned the creature into a dragon... etc...
Maybe that's legitimate. Maybe we can get away with anything in the color pie, if we add some keywords that make that color happy. I don't know. The argument seems too big for me.
Yeah, green is not going to get this straight up, but there is some interesting design space here. Green is always short of ways to deal with creatures, and I'm not sure of that is identity, and how much is gameplay balance. Judging from cards like Entangling Vines green should get some removal, but it should very situational, so there may be room for green to get some control -- probably a variant of the ability (like how red gets temporary control and blue gets permanent control).
For instance, to try to capture the "burn out the unnatural animation and return a creature to nature" perhaps "You control target creature. It loses all abilities [except...]" Which is a weaker version of what blue gets, but green would be very grateful for.
Or tie it to the number of forests you control, or the power of a creature you control.
yeah a 2/1 for 2 sounds better here,3/1 is just too strong even at Rare.
I think I'd prefer to see this as a 2/1 for 2 than a 3/1 for 3. They're both fairly unsolvable, obviously, but the 3-damage-a-turn clock is pretty nasty.
I do like the last line (prevent combat damage) for when you have to deviate from the main plan enough to use her as a blocker.
I like her as white-blue, but I feel that green-blue could also make sense.
Yeah, I would never suggest this card be printed. It does feel quite wrong. I think it would be much more likely, as you said, to gain control based on power, or to take all creatures.