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 22:49:05)
| 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 22:49:05)
The key difference between Redmine and this is that Redmine put the land into your hand. (Vitenka got away with Redmine on the basis of one or two drafts: it was good but not absurd, and there were bigger things to fix ;) )
It's certainly possible to nerf this hard enough that it isn't any good. But I wonder if a different kind of tuning might be better.
Hmm, there's a turns delay on using it the next time; and you have to already be at four mana. It doesn't seem like it would break anything this way.
I got away with Redmine which is a lot faster than this.
I made it so hat the mountain comes out tapped, and increased the cost to recur it. Does that make it more acceptable, or should I have it recur to hand instead of the battlefield?
Or Mountain for that matter. Even without the second ability, this card is better than a basic mountain, since it gives you a free shuffle.
I like the idea, but this seems exceedingly strong land acceleration for red. The fact that it doesn't use up a land drop makes it better than Thawing Glaciers in some situations.
Yeah, this just randomly floated into my mind. It would be good for equipment with big equip costs. It would also be good on an Isochron Scepter, if you had more than one.
Huh. Curious.
Might work out similar to Magnetic Theft :)
Both because most cheap enchantments are auras, and because I think people would be confused about auras entering the battlefield without being cast. If I recall correctly, it lets the auras attach to creatures with shroud.
Hm, I think all the cantrip 1-mana enchantments are actually Auras. Why does this have the non-Aura clause, anyway?
I don't have the chance to do a Gatherer search right now to see what breaks this...
"Witch Hunter," maybe.
All the cards you cited are Auras, jmgariepy. The casting cost does need to go up, though.
Huh. There are no enchantments with a casting cost of zero (not counting Ghastly Haunting, which isn't a target). Man, this card could have been broken in half with a single suspend card.
Personally, I think the casting cost might have been appropriate if there wasn't the whole "I can put two enchantments into play at instant speed." Thingy. As it stands, this card is a good card without even searching for the library. If it just let you put two enchantments into play at instant speed, uncounterable, then it would be worth the cost. Refuse to block my creatures? Eat double Sinister Strength. Don't block? Man, are you gonna love this double One With Nature trick...
But, you know, with a little deck tweaking, you can get some pretty silly results. For example, if you have two Abundant Growths in your library, you get a card that's much better than Divination. That should be a big warning that the cost is off.
Wow. Casting one enchantment from library (and avoiding fiddly mana costs) could well be worth
. Getting the second one for free as well sounds somewhat gratuitous.
Because I almost always under-cost things? :-)
Hmm, Twiddle cantrip, but creature only. And white or blue. Usually it's creatures you want to twiddle... bit too good, maybe? I'd probably pay
more for it; so why not charge me that?
Nice: the most useful parts of Niveous Wisps and Cerulean Wisps hybridised together. I'd play it.
Yeah, you have a great concept, there must be a good name to go with it. Something like "Witch Hunt"?