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 22:05:52)
Seeing as the original card replaced cost 2, I dropped it to 1B, and -1/-1. That's not locked in stone or anything. If people feel the effect should be bigger, and/or more expensive, we can do that.
I feel like in limited opposition is conveyed more by making linear cards that define clearly different decks, than by making hate cards. But there should be some individual cards which play up the opposition.
From a flavour perspective, I'd want an Aer-vs-mono duel to feel like the Aer player has more powerful cards, but the mono player is relentlessly keeping up the pressure. I'm not sure how to convey that through the flavour and mechanics, but I feel like there should be a difference.
I thought that "Fungus creatures that have +1/+1 counters on them, and put +1/+1 counters on other creatures, and care about creatures with +1/+1 counters on them" was a sufficiently obvious flavour for "Fungus creatures that are full of spores, which attach to other creatures, and the fungus have some sort of affinity to creatures to which the spores have spread".
I definitely want to keep flavour, but I feel like flavour conveyed by mechanics is at least as good as flavour conveyed by creature type.
I'm sorry, I meant, "I think this was a nice idea but I'm not sure it's working, how about removing ALL of the card, and replace it, in it's entirety, with Auger Spree, or an Auger Spree variant?" I didn't mean to suggest keeping the life gain and losing everything else.
What's the problem with the name? It seems fine to me to have it be Aer-themed, whether or not it mechanically operates only on non-Aer.
That's definitely the situation. I guess the questions are:
My suggestion was to replace this with pacifism, and replace Folded Light with Enchantment digger. I think that ought to keep the number of enchantments and the number of "cares about enchantments" the same, while simplifying common -- am I missing something with that suggestion? We may also need to tweak the sizes of the creatures, I've not looked at the outline in white.
Feel free to tweak the numbers, I'm not sure what the right combination is. I'm worried too much lifegain may tend to stall limited games, but you're right, it should be comparable to stab wound, not worse.
It's a shame. I like the 'bud' keyword, but you're right that we're probably leaning way too much on the Vorthos spectrum by keeping it the way it is.
The problem, though, is that we lose a lot of the 'why' when we remove the fungus creature type from the equation. It's just +1/+1 counters and creatures that key off that. Still interesting. But I really liked the idea of everything getting fungified.
Maybe the correct idea is to do something like this?:
Some Fungus
??
Creature - Fungus
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.
Creatures with +1/+1 counters on them are Fungus in addition to their other types.
~ gets +1/+1 for each other Fungus in play.
1/1
I don't know. I'm rather torn. It's a pretty big Vorthos/Melvin split. I think part of my problem is that, as a designer, I appreciate Melvin, but as a game player, I prefer Vorthos.
Mmm. There's one benefit to giving rules to a counter. We can print the counter on the token sheet with rules text right on it.
It is a good point. But I'm not sure what to set the number at. Kudzu is set to 6 as a sort of kicker effect. I think the Heavy Plant is set to 4, because it assumes that things like Llanowar Elves exists. I think setting the Heavy Plant to 6 would make sense anyway... but if we make more of these cards in the uncommon/rare slot, then we'll have a sort of threshold effect where green turns on on six lands. I'm not sure if we want that? Maybe we should stagger this at 3/6/9? Give the Heavy Plant the easy to hit 3, make an uncommon with 3 and one with 6, and a rare with 9?
I agree. Maybe we can get that point across in the uncommons? Alternatively, we could alter the flavor text on a few commons. Unless you got an idea for a mechanic that could portray political backstabbing? It's a tricky concept to work mechanically, I admit.
Took the liberty of adding "you control" to the text, since that's what I assume you intended, Alex. I suppose this could say 'may' instead, if you want to use this for multiplayer, but don't want to shoot yourself in the foot.
This makes sense. I suggest uncommon, since it's just easier to put cards there, then muck around with the common slots.
I'd rather we didn't go straight to the "Pro Multicolor" well, since I think we can do better, and we can't block with them anyway, unless they all included reach.
We could do an 'etb = hate multicolor' theme, if we wanted. For example, a red creature that hit the battlefield and Act of Treasoned a multicolor creature. Personally, I'd prefer if it wasn't removal, but more messed with the multicolor player. You know, since I don't feel it's a good idea to take up the removal slots with these cards. But if the etb cards don't remove, and ask for a specific creature (gold), we can really push those stats.
I'm happy to hear other suggestions, though. I'm just thinking off the top of my head.
Well that's annoying, but I have an answer. Welcome to the uncommon sheet. The risk/reward nature of the card belongs in that commonality anyway. Since Uncommon is supposed to be 'better' than common, I took the opportunity to give it an extra toughness, too.
Mmm. Once we invoke +X/-X, the gain 2 life doesn't make sense anymore. I kind of like this one as is. It tells a cute story. The name will have to change, though, since it doesn't add to the story, nor is this a spell that specifically deals with non-flying creatures...
It's quite possible that this card could end up pulling the Tome Scour trick, where nobody takes it, and then someone realizes that nobody is taking the card and begins to draft a deck that consists of 10 Deny Knowledges...
Though, that one fewer card, and one more cost may make it not as consistent. The only two colors would make it more likely that other people won't accidentally pick it up, though.
It's tough. I like this card because it's an enigma. But being an enigma doesn't make it good. Do we need more good cards in the gold slot? Is it okay to have an enigma on the common sheet?
To be honest, I kind of like the card from a 'collect me' standpoint. But I can see that it really doesn't need to exile... it just needs to return another creature with the same name from the graveyard. I suppose it's kind of like the old two Gravedigger trick, except you can only ever get another Gravedigger, but you get a bonus toughness and reach in exchange.
I suppose this raises 2 questions:
1). Has playing with exile fallen by the wayside? Should I just change this to 'other creature with same name in graveyard'.
2). Is it okay to have both this card and Enchantment Digger in the same common sheet, since it's quite possible that card is coming in.
Oops. I just moved Runearrow Archer to uncommon based on the suggestion here on How can monocolor deal with flying?
But I got to admit, Soulcapture Lance does 'feel' like an uncommon. I suppose it's probably best to argue which of those cards belong in uncommon in one of those card's threads, though.
As for Tie in Ribbons, I agree, kind of feels too Chinese Menu. But I think part of the problem was that we were trying to shove as many 'enchantment matters' effects on white cards as we could find. By my count, if we don't count Disempower, then there are only three 'enchantment matters' cards in white common, including this one. I'd think we'd want to maintain three.
We could pull Enchantment Digger forward, but that means something else would need to go. Is there any way we could make this card not be as awkward instead? Oh, hold it... we're shipping one of the uncommons up. Should I just move Enchantment Digger into its slot? Possibly as a 6-cost 3/5? That, or make Thread Gatherer a 6-cost 5/1?
Moved to uncommon as per suggestions on How can monocolor deal with flying?. Evidently we have too many answers in White? Go figure.
I suppose that means we have a hole to fill in white common creature. Something with a casting cost of 3 would be preferable... otherwise, there's probably some shufflin' to do.
Are we sure we wouldn't want this to gain you 2 life? Or be -1/-1 and cost
? The way the card is written right now, people are bound to compare this directly to Stab Wound, and it sure doesn't look good in comparison.
I agree. Used to have "When you control no Islands, sacrifice ~". Removed.
While I agree that we need some good enchantment and artifact removal, I'd think it would be more appropriate for those cards to appear in the mono-colored slots so that everyone has an equal chance to access them... instead of printing something like Aura Mutation that can only be accessed by Green/White. I do like the idea, however, of sticking cards like Lofty Sanctifier which isn't as direct an answer, but would probably do a more efficient job in the long run. A couple more answers like that in the multi-color uncommon run would make sense to me.
Oops, yes, it's identical except for colour, isn't it? Sorry for the duplication. I've even been looking at Aer Mechanist for Gold uncommon submissions.
It probably feels a little blue because of Benthic Explorers and things like Annex.
I like those suggestions.
Further brainstorming:
Other thoughts, not about abilities: