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 2026-03-14 14:21:48)
I don't think it's a case of having nothing to do in the late game. I think it's more that (a) it's better to make the card have some use earlier in the game too, and (b) if you do choose to go the high-CMC route, such cards don't need to be very plentiful, hence don't need to be common.
For examples of (a), consider Shade of Trokair, Bold Defense, or Apex Hawks. These are all commons that can use 7+ mana (in two cases can use arbitrary amounts of mana) in the late game. But they can be cast on turn 3-4 as well if you need to. That just seems better design to me than making a 9-cost sorcery with no early-game use at common.
Actually, the number is 0, before or after the modern card frame. It's the reason why I've been stretching to make one. Even when white has had the option to create some high cc sorcery, like in Absorb Vis basic landwalking cycle, it chose to make the 5cc instant bomb Gleam of Resistance.
It is odd... like there's some sort of unwritten rule about it. But wizards could easily print something like Urza's Armor and cost it as a
common, and reality probably wouldn't break down. Or maybe a 6cc sorcery that said "Gain 9 life". or make three 2/2 Knights. Really, there's plenty of options. I know white is supposed to be the color with cheap threats, but having nothing to do in the late game isn't particularly fun.
Wow. Yeah, it's pretty rare for there to be a white common with CMC 6 or greater, let alone a noncreature one. I can't remember any white noncreature commons of CMC>=6 in since the modern card face came out. Even outside white there'll be very few: Absorb Vis has an alternate early-game use case. It doesn't seem like a criterion that particularly needs meeting.
My first attempt at making a White common with a casting cost of 6 or greater that is not a creature went horribly awry. This is not a common, nor is it white, probably. Still, I like it, so I figured I'd post it for the heck of it. Maybe, when we make our expansion, we can put some enchantment creatures in other colors, to represent the exploring the colors are starting to do?
Added Aurora Wall to my skeleton because I like it. Also added Cleansing Powder which does nothing for our set... I needed a combat trick, and I figured my list had already hammered into the prerequisites hard enough. Also, changed Weft Weaver to Jack's original suggestion, and made him mimic a Death Speakers. It was probably the best way to do that card, as much as I fight to get something different in the set.
In an attempt to get some inspiration, I did an advanced search on gatherer for White common non-creature spells with a casting cost of 6 or more. It turns out that there are none. That sounds like a challenge to me for the last slot...
For White Commons Submissions.
I think cmeister is right. Common should just have a 0/3, though maybe it could block more than once. We could put another in at rare or uncommon that has "toughness" if we so desire.
I think I prefer the simple 0/3 version if I'm honest, but that's me.
That sounds like a good idea. The file could probably support an uncommon as well. I like this design, and would like to see a few more enchantments that blocked like a creature. I think a deck that ran 12 of them would be kind of cool.
We could try both this version and a "1 damage only once per turn". Maybe we'd end up with shifting them even further apart and having one at common and one at rare.
I know this card is hard to guage, but really, as it is printed right now, I'd rather put an Angelic Wall in my deck and pay an extra
for it. Personally, I think the "not once per turn" plays a little better into it acting like an enchantment... since it seems very similar to cards like Sphere of Law that way. But I'm not going to rail against giving it +1 power instead, if that's the way people would rather go.
Thanks, cmeister.
So, should we make this a "1/3" creature? And should it be able to block more than once per turn? I'm not sure about being able to block infinitely, but I like it being 1/3, I think.
I really like this :)
ROFL. Yeah, this is really useless against tramplers, which sort of fits :) But yes, it's a definite bonus to block evasion creatures, that's another very white thing.
Keep in mind that it can also block unblockable creatures, which is generally difficult to do. Then again, it's also really crappy against tramplers.
Jmg: I agree with all your points about why this should be at least average in power (and I think it's a cool card -- simple but new). But I'm really not sure what the power level is.
If it could only block one creature, it would be as you say -- about equivalent to a 0/3 reach defender. (Assuming you cost vulnerability-to-creature-removal and vulnerability-to-enchantment-removal about equal.) 0/3 reach probably costs
, or 
with a 
upkeep. But the ability to block multiple small creatures without dying is bound to be useful sometimes (it may even be too annoying, although I think it's an important way to make this feel like an enchantment rather than a creature), so that pushes it up by 
? Or more? That would be 
or 
, it should probably be playtested at one of those and see how it does.
I'm fine with a shift in power level. I just didn't want to make it too good.
Oh, I agree, not every card should be good. But when you have a completely new card idea, it should probably be at least mediocre the first time you show it off. This is for two reasons:
1). You don't want people prejudiced against the mechanic when they see it again because "the mechanic is weak", and
2). When players don't know if something is good or not, they assume that the designers/developers knew what they were doing, and put the card in their deck and/or draft the card. You don't want to let down the people who are putting their faith in you.
But outside of that, I don't think you need to make a card like this good... I just think it needs to be playable... akin to a 6-7 pick in a draft.
How about you make it "~ deals 1 damage to target attacking creature and that creature becomes blocked"? That's also a white ability... (Which is amusing in that if we'd chosen green as the enchantment colour, "
: ~ deals 1 damage to target attacking creature" would feel horrendously out-of-pie in a way that a green 1/3 wouldn't :P )
I agree it feels like Gideon is the least likely of the white walkers to end up multicolour. Ajani already has done, and Elspeth is conflicted and Bant-affiliated. Gideon feels pure white to me.
But OTOH, I do like having a gold planeswalker turn into a flying creature. OTGH, a 6/6 invulnerable flyer is even more game-dominating than a 6/6 invulnerable non-flyer, so I fear this card may need to be about 6 mana; and if the creature gets smaller it'll draw unfavourable comparisons to the older Gideon.
tweak the wording a little
For a common, I think it's fine. Not every card can be good. Getting rid of the last sentence, like JM suggested, might make it simpler though.
Oh, that is keen. I think we can make this card a bit better, since right now it reads like a 0/3 Reach, Defender with Protection from Doom Blade for 3... which is probably not strong enough to matter. We might, instead/also, want to cut out the Activate once per turn, since blocking multiple creatures was already a white mechanic...
Changed drawback. I think prefer this one. Thoughts?
I like the idea, and agree a single drawback seems the right balance. I'm not sure if I prefer it as two abilities or one ability.
Yeah, I agree we may (probably) not use protection, it's just a convenient shorthand for the set of effects we may choose form.