Community Set: Recent Activity
| Community Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Common Breakdown Ref | All commons for playtesting |
Recent updates to Community Set: (Generated at 2025-12-20 11:40:25)
Yeah... I considered making it more expensive and removing the skipping of the draw step. That would probably be a better option.
AKA Psychic Possession, but with more risk of stalling yourself out of the game. If they draw a useful beater and you draw a land, bingo, you've just lost because they won't cast any more spells so you won't have any chance to draw any answers.
An Enlighten-player for Aer.
This is not for anything specific, just musing how else color-vs-multicolor cards could appear.
Heh. I suppose Nova Chaser was also a 2-card combo.
The more I think about this card, the more I want to enchant Mahamoti Djinn with it and swing...
We haven't designed most of the uncommons and rares yet. I'd expect this to kill commons. It's a very big hammer, but red is allowed to get very big hammers for 5 mana: see Shivan Meteor.
I completely missed the minus on the toughness the first time I saw this. I just assumed red would only be giving bonuses.
Also, there's only a singly creature in the file right now that can live through this enchantment, and it's not in red.
We didn't have an expensive creature kill card in red common. This may not be a perfect answer, but I could see some people liking the card.
I was going to edit this to "tap an untapped creature you control" but that just looks weird to me. Maybe it's best to just leave one creature that asks you to play with Minions, so players have something to build around in draft.
Alternatively, we could just make this a more expensive creature, possibly an uncommon, so that tapping a mid-range creature wouldn't feel so weird.
The other alternative, of course, is to just cut the thing. But, I'd rather have a few more cards to playtest and see people's reactions to than the opposite.
Edited to sacrifice a creature, which is considerably better. I'd cut a point of toughness as well, but it might be best to let this card be for now. Especially if some of the cheaper Gorgons have backlash qualities to being sacrificed, the difference won't be very stark.
Sorry, Link. That wasn't intended to call out your design. I'd explain further, but I don't want to be accidentally arguing something that we are trying to move past. I just want to make sure that we can still see the master/slave relation in our mechanics, but I'm sure we can do this without Minion tribal.
Unless I missed some, there's only one card in the file that gives enchantments P/T bonus, Master of Enchantments, which probably won't end up in the set. I just made it as a shift of Master of Etherium.
Anyway, I'd be fine with making Gorgons expensive and/or things you wouldn't want to get rid of. It's black, though, so I don't think it would have a problem enslaving its own. I like the idea of having one or a few Gorgons that get made when they're made to serve, though.
Hmm... I'm not sure how something like "All Enchantments get +1/+1" would be seen as acceptable, but "Sacrifice a Minion" is too in set parasitic. But, I digress. It looks like I'm fighting an uphill battle with this one.
Though, I'm not sure where this leaves us. Do we want things like "Tap a Minion" or "Tap a creature" as cost in this set? How about other forms of persecution towards your own creatures? And, if you can sacrifice any creature, do we make Gorgons that have some sort of problem with being sacrificed, so that the common deck isn't the ruling class enslaving the ruling class? Or do we just make sure that Gorgons are expensive creatures and/or tricky creatures that you only want to play a few of?
I also agree that "sacrifice a creature" is probably a better default: I think interesting black and rewards-for-mono-black can probably be made without being too specific abhout minion tokens: minion-makers and creature-sacrificers will naturally go together anyway. (Though more ideas on how to make the theme unique are definitely good)
That's kind of what I've been saying, but I feel like I've been too argumentative at times.
Ruthless Invasion was probably four mana because of the phyrexian mana.
I think a CCC can be 3/3 without any problems, even at common. It's certainly fine at uncommon: compare Boggart Ram-Gang.
0/1 allows this card to have more aggressive stats itself. Compare Sengir Autocrat and Dread Drone with something like Marsh Flitter or Skeletal Vampire (which also had to be rare). I think this is fine.
The problem with "Sacrifice a Minion" or "Tap three untapped Minions" is that it's far, far more parasitic than "Sacrifice a creature". It virtually dooms the cards to only be played with other cards from the same set, rather than getting lots of juicy interactions with cards from throughout Magic's history.
Very nice common for the set. Potentially a bit too effective; it's pretty similar to Ruthless Invasion, and might need to be 4 mana. But I like the idea a lot.
As currently phrased, this does need an "on your turn" restriction. Otherwise you're trying to make some random creature attack you while you control it, and I don't think the rules like that.
I agree it'd be great to have one of these in the set, but I think uncommon might be better for it.
Mmm... I see the problem. Act of Treason is barely a common as it is. It has four different actions associated with it. Doubling back and adding a timing restriction does chunk up the card.
Maybe we should just shelf whatever Threaten effect we have for uncommon, then. On a separate side note, I like the all-in red mechanic, but I do find it funny how many things don't work with it. "As long as all your creatures are tapped, target creature gains Haste" is almost funny. "Target creature must attack if able" is another one that would inspire some sideways looks.
Would you like a challenge instead? Red normally has two direct damage spells in common: One Shock variant and one Lightning Blast variant. But that idea seems to bore you. How about a straight-up creature removal spell in red? Red rarely gets one, but if it is top down and tied to devils, yetis, ice or snow it may work. I must admit, right now, I have no idea how to make that card, so I'm bouncing the ball over to you if you want it.
I meant it was odd because then the card had way to many restrictions, especially for a common.