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 2025-12-15 22:10:07)
But I love cycles. Players love cycles. Everybody expects them, and when you make something that seems like it should be in one, and then don't complete it, people get mad.
I think we may need to avoid a strict cycle, but those proportions sound a reasonable place to start.
White could have Circle of Protection Enchantment Creature: Gold.
That said, with the current direction of the creative, as seen in the discussion on Aer, could we hold off specifically calling out Gold hate? Aer and the Gloaming are just discovering each other; they're not yet at war; and I don't think the creatures of the Gloaming yet know what the source of their "oppression" is.
Mechanically, if we had a card like Doomseek in each color, it would hate on multicolor and the other monocolors equally well.
We could do 5 "three-color" creatures, 5 ally colored creatures (with Enlighten?), and 5 noncreatures?
or maybe "copy this ability".
They don't all have to tap. It could be a triggered ability with a payment. I see your point, though. I was just pointing out another possibility.
Yeah, I wish there was an easier way for an effect to be "ETB action on creatures, action on spells and activated or triggered abilities". You could make the comp rules say "bud" could be either "When ~ ETB, you may put a +1/+1 counter on target creature" or "Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature". I think that would work unambiguously, but would be a bad idea.
OK, with no easy way of wording this with "bud", I think we should leave it as is. We can change it later if bud changes for some other reason. This seems like a nice card which goes well with the set, but could be reprinted elsewhere.
We could add "creatures you control with +1/+1 counters on are fungus in addition to the other types" here for flavour reasons, although I don't like doing that too often.
That's... a lot more fiddly wording to achieve essentially the same effect...
(Okay, essentially the same effect in Limited situations. Johnny can certainly have a ton of fun with "all your creatures put a +1/+1 counter somewhere".)
templating (looks like it should be "two" not "2")
"it looks like our multicolour uncommons will be simpler than our multicolour commons..."
Yeah. I think we threw a lot of interesting ideas at common, and that's fine but we probably need a shake up at some point where we move stuff around. Maybe it's not a good idea to stick to five 2CMC creatures: a wider range of mana costs would allow more closer-to-vanilla creatures, and some more aggressive 2-drops could go at uncommon.
If we've got some monocolour disenchants as well, then gold uncommon probably only needs one. Remember our gold uncommon slots are extremely squeezed: the skeleton says we've got 20 but I think from the discussion on Uncommon Design it's likely to actually be 15.
That's a fair point :) Let's not worry about it too much.
So, this uncommon cycle of gold-haters. Red gets an etb-Threaten a gold creature, on something like a 3/4 for 4 mana?
What should the other colours have? White could have activated prevent damage from a gold creature, but that'd want to either tap or be pretty expensive. Blue... I'm not sure if blue should get to bounce a gold creature unless it's for a pretty high cost. Green could ETB fight a gold creature? Or maybe tap to remove all abilities from a gold creature? Black could outright destroy one, or alternatively be a Ravenous Rats variant that Coercions for a multicolour card?
Good point. It could take the place of "serra angel but slightly better", or it could be a splashier rare. Rare sounds good if we think of an ability for it.
Ah! I vaguely remembered something, but not where. It's interesting how different they were, that there we considered 5/5 at common, here I was worried about 4/4 at uncommon. Most of those uncommons are not recent, but some are. Maybe in a set with good flying, we can have 5/4 or 5/5 at the appropriate cost.
Maybe we should have a 2/4 double strike as our "air elemental but a bit better" and a more expensive more stompy creature like Cloudbeast of Burden?
Discussion of stompy-ness on Serra Aerngel, and evasion on Ascended Lawmage, and double-strike on Fles Eria Marshall.
Hm, this is a bit sad by comparison with a Serra Angel. It is of course a great recipient of any pump effects, but it's a pity that absent other things it's "just" a 4/4 flyer for 5.
Maybe this should be a rare, and have 3 or 4 power along with a nice rare ability.
I think "big stompy uncommon flier" was discussed at Cloudbeast of Burden, another place where we wondered how big an uncommon flier could be. Ah, looking back now, no, we wondered how big a common flier could be, and decided 5/5 would have to be uncommon or higher; didn't particularly discuss whether uncommon would max out at Serra Angel size or not.
Gatherer says there have been a small handful of uncommon fliers with 5 power: either conditional (Zanam Djinn, Stoic Ephemera, Phantasmal Dragon, Cloud Djinn) or expensive (Tresserhorn Skyknight, Qumulox, Archangel).
I'm trying to keep track of all the proposed gold uncommons over at Gold uncommon submissions.
Naturalize on tap is distressingly good against some decks though. Nullmage Shepherd asked for quite a bit more than tapping one creature. Giant Growth is certainly powerful, but not in a way that'll feel unfair.
I like this card, and I like the idea of finding a small handful of reprints for the set. So a vague thumbs up from me.
The way things are going, it looks like our multicolour uncommons will be simpler than our multicolour commons...
Alternatively, we could just change the functionality of this card to match the mechanic, instead of the other way around. May I suggest:
Bud
Creatures cards and Forests cards you own gain Bud.
Hmm... I'm not sure if that's how you'd word that...
I'm trying to think of a pair of cards to point to, but really, none of them are as iconic to Serra, so it's probably not worth pulling them forward.
What I'm saying is that, I would assume, some people would see Serra's cost in two colors and say "Why didn't they give me something new? This casting cost is harder (an arguable claim, I admit) so why didn't I get something better for my money?
To be honest, though, I don't really think it bugs me that much. I might be defending shadow players.
As in, "At the beginning of your upkeep, bud"? That'd mean all the normal Fungi need to say "When ~ ETBs, bud", which doesn't look so bad with the abbreviations but is worse when it looks like "When Generic Fungus enters the battlefield, bud. (To bud, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.)" Although... hmm...
> When Generic Fungus enters the battlefield, bud. (To bud, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.)
> Bud (When this creature enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.)
Okay, they're about the same length including reminder text. I think players will internalise "ETB bud" very quickly, so I guess there's not much to choose between them.
If 90% of the uses are going to be ETB, though, I think the keyword should just include ETB. See how Battlegrace Angel didn't say "Exalted - +1/+1, Exalted - gains lifelink".
Edited and thank you for doing the work I should have done, Alex. :)
I'd go with either "Distribute 2 +1/+1 counters between any number of target creatures" as on Blessings of Nature, or "Distribute two +1/+1 counters among one or two target creatures" as on Elven Rite's Oracle wording.
I don't think adding a number is a good plan.
I'm not sure what it used to say, but surely "Distribute 2 +1/+1 counters between any number of target creatures"?
Alternatively, I suggest on green common submissions, that bud could have a number. Something like "Bud 2" means "put 2 +1/+1 counters on target creature". Then this common could have bud 2, and an uncommon could have "bud, bud, bud" (giving you slightly more flexibility).
Should it be "bud"? I'm not sure.
Cool. I like the green cards a lot more just from that change.
It would probably say "Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature, then do it again."
Now more literal.