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 23:00:04)
| 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 23:00:04)
The really big problem with this card is it acts as acceleration when combined with discard... or self mill. Discard moreso. This plus Silverglade Pathfinder, for example, can get kind of silly. Wild Mongrel and this land is just too much abuse.
Personally, I think an activation cost should help this problem out. Even if the cost was "
: Return this land from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped." Then you'd be able to slow down the crazy super-aggro starts, and leave you with a sexy ability.
Maybe a subtheme. I can't really see that being a successful focus.
I asked Matt Tabak if this would work, and he said "Yes, but why would you want it to?" or something to that effect.
Eww, flashback. Unfortunately it doesn't work anywhere near as well with Recoup / Past in Flames as people would like. You can grant it flashback, and then cast it... but when it leaves the stack and would enter the battlefield, flashback steps in and says "Nuh-uh. From the stack, the only place you can go is the exile zone."
I presume this was more for tutoring it out; or flashing it back. But mm, rules oddness is always yummy.
Hee. So I can cast it whenever I could cast a sorcery or a creature. Either way, on the stack it's an artifact creature sorcery spell. When resolving, since the game asks "Are you a creature spell?" and gets "yes", it goes onto the battlefield.
Odd things happen when you start copying this with Izzet Guildmage or Panoptic Mirror. I think it all works fine if you assume the Rules Team eventually get around to saying that copies of creature spells become creature tokens.
For a set with a focus on land sacrifice?
Thanks, that's a good point.
You should probably include reminder text that you still have to pay its cost, a la Garruk's Horde. Unless it's intended to be free, in which case this seems a bit better than Galvanoth.
Yeah... I forgot the second half of the Training Grounds ability.
Mindshrieker: Too easy?
I played for ante! But only, like twice. And got some of the god-decks, too.
And yeah, those early rulebooks were bad. I've told the story about being clear on there being a phase order but not being clear there was a turn order, right? I lost (to ante) an Armageddon in that simultaneous-combat game.
Eew. Ante.
Be glad you never played for Ante! In the original rule book, it was more of an official rule than whatever 'Protection from Black' was supposed to mean. Man, this game has come a long way...
I didn't expect there to be much discussion on this card. I think Alex is right, and it does belong at Uncommon, and probably in White, as well.
I began play even more recently than Jack V, and I haven't been through ANY major rules changes. So when I hear about some of the stuff that once was, it often sounds bizarre to me that anyone would want it. Mana burn? Eew! Damage on the stack? Yuck!
Hah! Yeah, I should probably have said "unrelated" for wider comprehensibility there...
@Alex: I don't know if there's anyone here who doesn't understand it, but I was very amused at myself when I realised I was automatically using "orthogonal" to mean "can be one without the other, or the other one without the first one", and that literally made no sense to someone who hadn't been trained at university to see everything in terms of vector spaces :)
Ah! I'd heard references to this before, but wasn't sure what was misunderstanding and what actually used to be a rule.
FWIW, I've only been through one major rule change, and from that perspective all the previous ones look obviously necessary, and a few years on even the new combat rules seem like they need to be this way. (Seriously, did I ever think "combat damage on the stack" was normal? :))
The one I did think was a mistake was the deathtouch rule, before it was changed to the "count any damage as lethal damage" version.
Oh, and Tribal, but that wasn't a rule change, but a new rule.
Whoo! Vitenka, that is an old piece of trivia in your head. For what it's worth, the old rule that Alex is citing didn't remove the creature from combat, it prevented tapped blockers from dealing combat damage. It was a flavorful rules quirk that would only come up in high level tournaments, since no one knew it. (It also made Master Decoy very deadly in draft. You could completely shut down a player who didn't know that rule.)
The sixth edition rules change caused a lot of backlash... and I know many people were upset this rule was changed. I still use that rules quirk as a counter-argument when someone complains about the game being 'dumbed down' with new rules changes. It always seems like a terrible idea at the time, but considering the value Wizards gets when streamlining the game, it's almost always a good move.
Nope. That's why Ith, High Arcanist and Maze of Ith specifically say "untap target attacking creature and prevent all combat damage it would deal this turn". Being tapped and being in combat are completely orthogonal. The only connection is that declaring a non-vigilant creature as an attacker causes it to tap. That is literally the only causal indication anywhere in either direction between tappedness and in-combat status.
Many, many years ago, tapped creatures used to not deal their combat damage. That's why Master of Arms's effect made any sense. But that's not been the case since at least the Sixth Edition rules updates in 1999.
I thought you could... Ah; you can untap a creature to remove them from combat?
That's not been the case since... well, at least 1999. So at least 14 years. Being tapped is completely orthogonal to being attacking or blocking.
And this can't actually block flyers (well, without an untap effect or other external help).