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 2025-12-18 08:17:02)
It's probably a bit too good for common, but that would be solved by giving it
.
Strong card. I really like the interactions here, from keeping a card out of opponent's hand to accelerating my own deck. That, and enchanting libraries sounds like the sort of strangeness the White tribe should be investing in. I would like to see more of that.
I see a rare that is this, but for all of you enchantment as well. It sounds like a fun build-around-me card waiting to happen. It does seem like it would be unfun to make the high CC, low P/T, awesome effect Enchantment Creature into a fatty that is actually less awesome. Enchantments, as a rule, give great bonuses. My first impression was that it was really cool, but now I'm not so sure.
I thought I looked this up before but I can't find the comment now. Strangly, there seems to be only one "target library" card (circu lobotomist, who is wordy but not otherwise quirky). I'm not sure why wizards made an exception there, it seems strange, since nothing gives libraries shroud, it doesn't matter except for getting around effects that prevent players being targetted. I don't know if they wanted to make the lobotomist less hoseable, or if it was just missed in a template updating or something.
"Enchant library" would be amusing, and make sense if it has an effect on the library; it's probably a good thing to do if we're sure the interactions with player-shroud don't matter.
As a side note, I know that libraries aren't usually targeted. Maybe we could break the rules a little in this set. We've spoken about having enchantments enchanting more things that they don't normally, like cards in the exile zone and players (which Innistrad is making less rare, but still). Perhaps we could have an "enchant library" or two.
We definitely want something like this.
Another alternative would be a creature with an activated ability; that would be more flexible, although less simple.
I think we need to test it, but provisionally, I think that's a good thing to try. It wouldn't fit most sets, but if the residue effects are kept simple, I think it can fit here. Perhaps even make two common enchantments with +0/+1, or one with +1/+0 and one with +0/+1, so it's easy to keep track of.
For White Commons Submissions. This probably needs reminder text about Auras that are creatures not being able to enchant stuff.
I agree about demystify: it can fit the flavour (white is good at making, and removing, enchantments), but it's a card white probably wants less than normal.
Another combat trick option for White Commons Submissions. The effects are simple, but take a lot of words. It's hard to make a flash enchantment that takes an instants place, but I think it's worth it for the theme if we can get it to work.
Can we shift this to common? I've temporarily placed it on my White Commons Submissions.
Yeah, oops. Didn't really mean for it to be a wall. Don't know why I put that...
Changed name.
For White Commons Submissions. Cost and P/T subject to change. They're just guesses for now.
Changed size.
Also, I was thinking that white should have a stronger theme of boosting your creature's power and toughness. This is a common effect in white already, but for some reason, it just feels like it makes sense with enchantment creatures. Of course, perhaps it just has a few more of these effects at common than normal. Having too many is probably a bad idea. I do like the idea of enchantment creature Veteran Swordsmith and Veteran Armorsmith, though.
Also, jmgariepy mentioned an O-ring subtheme. Personally, I've been toying with that idea myself. Maybe we could try it out and see how it works, having a few that exile different things.
EDIT: Fixed links.
Oops. It should say "may" so that it's a straight copy of the ability.
I pondered over this too, but I really wanted a horse... so that won over. I think in this case, it could lose the horse subtype, and just have the artist portray it as a horse.
jmgariepy, I know I should have done it that way, but this was just easier for me, personally, to keep track of. I don't mean to push this format on other people working on white commons. Sorry.
Jack V, I think you're right. The breakdowns of creature numbers in sets tend to be different from Rosewater's skeleton example.
Does anyone else think Demystify would be weird when white cares so much about enchantments?
What I did for blue was make a table with recent sets along the top and slots down the side, except that I found it very helpful to, instead of trying to list fixed slots like "small creature, mill", I listed numbers of creatures and non-creatures, and then the number of mill cards of any sort, the number of bounce cards of any sort, etc. This seemed to make it easy to see at a glance what the recent defaults seemed to be, and make it less subjective (it was easy to tell what counted as a mill or evasion card, but harder to pigeonhole some cards into a specific slot).
I wonder, would it be helpful to do that on a wiki so everyone can do a bit of it; it's a bit like the core set projects of designing an archetypal skeleton, but more basic, but might also be useful elsewhere for designing any set to see at a glance what the creature breakdown for common blue is, or how many green cards had a set's theme, etc?
Or if this is already online somewhere, it would help creating a skeleton.
Edit: l2, that looks like a good start, but this might still help nailing details like number of creatures, and which colours do get vigilance most often at common. Eg. in 2012, blue had 10/20 creatures, and white had 12/20 and red, black, green had 11/20 (I think, I may have one wrong?), which suggests the current creature breakdowns are flatter than Rosewater thought when he wrote the skeleton articles (??)
I think we said at most one subtype, as there isn't room for more; I think we've still to decide which we like. It makes sense to think of "enchantment creature" as a psuedo-race, and add a class, but either way we'd have to stick to cases where it doesn't seem weird there's not a race (or class) where it looks like there should be.
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that, but I do like the name and the flavor, despite my question. :)
The name is funny :)
Defender? Walls without defender confuse old players who jump back into the game...
Were we going for class only creature type, or was it class or race? Because I really liked the alien feel of "Enchantment Creature - Rogue", since it isn't supposed to happen in Magic land. But Magic 2012 recently had "Creature - Horse"... that makes it not as alien in feel.