Mashup: the Gathering Workbench: Recent Activity
| Mashup: the Gathering Workbench: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Mashup: the Gathering Workbench: (Generated at 2025-07-03 20:34:58)
Hitting multiple times certainly feels like a very red thing to do. Triple red feels like it should to a heck of a lot more than just probably kill a few medium creatures, over the next few turns. Though saying that, I'd not like to be sat across from it in play. It sweeps the board and keeps it swept.
Hmm... it occurred to me that Shivan Meteor exists. I guess the casting cost is fine as is.
Blasphemous Act is a counterexample, although that one did feel a bit odd too. I think There Will Be Blood could cost
or perhaps 
; cf Rift Bolt.
Hmm... That's an interesting comment Dude. Are we saying that red spells that hit multiple things, even over multiple rounds, is automatically double red, in the same way that hard counters are always double blue? I got to admit, I have a hard time imagining large red board sweepers having a cost like
. I changed it to 
to line it up with Roiling Horror, and thought, for a few seconds to drop the cost by 1. I couldn't bring myself to do it, but it could be justified. After all, how much would you pay for this spell?:
There Will Be Blood
Sorcery
Next turn, target, then deal 5 damage to that creature.
Since it only affects creatures, it can't simply win you the gain like with a Fireball. Still, I think it needs a greater red investment.
The last card which didn't matter what type it was was Bridge from Below, which was a little controversial for it.
This card looks pretty oppressive, but I guess it needs 7 mana to even hit things twice, at which point you're in Form of the Dragon territory, so it's probably okay.
Random Generator gave me Fiery Fall and Roiling Horror. Curious... I kind of like this mechanic. If it wasn't a repeatable source for a ton of damage, I'd promote it to common, and maybe give it a cycle. As an interesting aside, it really doesn't matter what the permanent type on this card is. (Well, okay, Instant would have a different interaction, but you get the idea). Also, also: How long do you think it will be before "Emblem" becomes a spell?
Ha! I've spawned whole arguments!
Unfortunately, I can't currently add to the madness going on over there, which seems like a much better venue to argue your head off. I've been having troubles accessing that account. Password is lost in the Aether. I'll have to work on that tonight.
I decided to ask the group I know who're most intimate with the subtle, grubby, finicky details of the Comp Rules: the Rules Theory & Templating board on wizards.com. The thread is here. So far, most people don't think this wording works.
Hahahaha @the flavour text :)
Until you get an Eriksson, son of Eriksson situation :)
Nice mix for a red NightMare.
Random Generator gave me Lhurgoyf and Claws of Valakut. I suppose there were a number of ways to go with that... but the flavor text was going to be about Hans and Saffi. I had to look it up... according to the Vikings, the -dotter suffix can only be applied to daughters, and only stretches one generation before it. So, Hans needs to be an Eriksson. I'd say something about how inneffecient this is, but my brother has the same name as my father, except with a jr. tacked on. Maybe he would have been better off being called Robert Robertson, the vikings got it right, and we're the strange ones for dragging 1,000 year old family names forward.
Me neither. It's kind of hard to prove or disprove, too, since unblockable and indestructible are in a class by themselves. I'm sure that for every argument I could make, there would be a plausible, and equally shaky, counter argument.
I'm not even sure if "indestructible creatures can't block" would work, actually, for much the same reasons. I'm not sure that's a property of a permanent the game can get at.
Well, if it's just creatures with the "Not quite a keyword but yes, it really is" unblockable that can block it, then that's fine and simple and obvious. And dull.
If you also want 'landwalkers that see land, and flight if you have no flyers (and would it matter if they were untapped) and ...' then you're in for madness of rules fixing, I fear.
True, the ground is shaky. There's a bit of asking the game how it feels about the current game state. "Hey, game! Are my creatures unblockable right now? Oh, also, can you think of a scenario in which a spell that can't be countered can be countered anyways? Thanks. While you're at it, how do you feel about creatures that could get first strike?"
But I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people can parse this, whether or not the rules can.
I admit, dude1818, the idea that landwalkers could, in theory, be unblockable during your own declare blockers step did not occur to me. So I hit the book. This is what I found:
700.5. If an attacking creature is unblockable, no creature can legally block it.
Huh.
Um.
I... don't know? It may be possible that you can't have an unblockable creature unless it is attacking, but if we were to believe that, then Covert Operative would be lying to us when he wasn't attacking. That's weird. The rule, honestly is kind of unclear on the subject. Let's just say that I talked to the rules team and got them to update that rule? After all, we can look at a card and say "such and such a card is indestructible" even if it is a characteristic and not an ability. If there was a card that said "Indestructible creatures can't block", no one would be confused about what's going on... they'd just think it was weird. I assume unblockable works the same way... it just isn't currently spelled out.
Well, if you're gonna go that route - any non-attacking creature is unblockable (it's not a valid target to choose to block, after all)
Hmm. I think the answer jmg is hoping for is that no, technically, Anaconda isn't "unblockable" if you control a swamp; it just "can't be blocked".
jmg is on shaky ground here, though, because "unblockable" (like "indestructible") isn't actually a keyword ability. The official line is that it's just an English word with its normal English meaning. But that might mean it's rather dubious to have anything ask about unblockable creatures, because Anaconda, Progenitus, Wind Drake, and even Grizzly Bears can be "unblockable" (in the English-word meaning) in the right circumstances (for the Bears I'm thinking "when defending player has no creatures"). So I'm not sure if this card works or not.
What if I control Anaconda and Swamp? Since I, the defending player, control a Swamp, it's unblockable, therefore can block the Knight, correct? It probably isn't supposed to be thought of that way.
Random generator gave me Lady Zhurong, Warrior Queen and Island. Island color shifts me blue, which has roughly no effect. Horsemanship, however, a non-supported ability needed changing. This is me simultaneously thumbing my nose at Horsemanship, while opening up some strange interaction. 4/3 seems perfect for this, being likely to register a block with potential profit.
As a quick aside, 36 creatures mention Horsemanship (though a few, I'd imagine, are tacked onto sorceries), while 82 cards mention 'unblockable' (though, many of those cards, like Curtain of Light don't count either). Which raises the problem "So... what can this be blocked by anyways?" Technically, it can be blocked by Covert Operative, but not by Anaconda, even if you control a swamp. That's because Swampwalk requires a defending player for it to be unblockable.
At first, I didn't include the line about Knight of the Periphery being blockable by cards named Knight of the Periphery because I liked how it messed with your mind when you thought about it too hard. But pointing the card at itself does help people understand what is a valid blocker and what isn't... being responsible is no fun sometimes.
Also, I want this card to be common, but I don't want to charge
for it, or change its p/t. I may have to, though...
Force is an enigma in Vintage. Despite the fact that 4x of them appear in 50%+ of the serious decks in that environment, Wizards will probably never restrict it, since the card helps stop turn 0 wins. It's also one hell of an expensive uncommon, fetching $60 at Starcitygames.com, and driving the price point up of every pack of Alliances.
But it's true. It's just the best counterspell in the game. It doesn't do anything, so I could see new or skipping players not knowing it exists in the same way they wouldn't know about Mana Drain or Hymn to Tourach if they never saw it in action.
It's an iconic free counterspell that is obviously "Mulligan until this is in your hand or you will lose" in type1. But it's too recent for me to know about :) I lost track of what type1 was doing way back. My last set was... the dark I think. Didn't restart until mirrodin.