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 2025-12-16 21:04:32)
Oh, hey, this is another way to get our all-in mechanic to happen off and on. I thought about having this say "unless all creatures you control are attacking", but I wanted to see this guy played in large armies.
Also, the devils are the more sentient red creatures (I think). I don't really picture the yetis having classes. But that can be up for debate.
This feels so weird.
I really like the Stingscourger ability. I know it's supposed to be an alternate take on Magic, but I'm a bit dissapointed that Wizards didn't follow that up in a later set.
"Power 2 or less." Shouldn't haste come first?
I like this, by the way.
Shouldn't it sat "target creature can't block this turn?"
Eh. 1/1 haste for
seems a bit underwhelming. I figure that the old Stronghold Goblin needs to be replaced some day.
For Red Commons Submissions. I like this card, but I'm not sure how you determine targets. Can you, as written, just target every creature, then decide how many creatures you would like to tap? Odd.
For etb Red Commons Submissions. I figured I'd start with a basic concept. An alternative occurred to me, that this guy could be unblockable on the turn it came into play. That sounds like a neat card, but I don't know if it would be solving our problem so well.
Also, these things would be insanely good in Magic 20XX. Instant late game wisdom.
I like this also, but it really should be "Fortify - Return an untapped land you control to its owner's hand."
Sorcery
As an additional cost to play ~, return a permanent you control (own?) to its owner's hand.
Draw two cards.
?
I was tempted to edit the card myself to cut off the "of any color that land could produce", and just let the card be used as a color fixer as well as an odd accelerant. I don't think that final decision is mine to make anymore, though, so I'll keep my hands off it. I do think, however, that it wouldn't hurt to have yet another card that helps multi-color. It may not prove to be necessary, though, so if we don't need it, I'd shut the extra power off.
@Alex: I also write 'colour' instead of 'color', but I don't have an excuse for it, besides that it looks better in my head. It gets curious comments around here.
Also realized I got the name and flavor backwards. This has everything but protection from white, which is considered Truth.
True. But that can be cleaned up in the casting cost. On a separate side note, the creature in question doesn't have protection from artifacts or land. And in this fortification man-land heavy block, that could be quite the hole.
Well, initial tests from 3 color decks say that they're risky, but there are good rewards, and the amount of fixing is fair. The high level of mana cyclers often means that you will sometimes have access to the third color, and sometimes not, often through the course of the game, until the later stages. I only tested with one of each fortification in both decks, but it looks like we're going to end up with two/three forts in the common slot that do a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to smoothing the mana base over, and those cards might even be tutored for (!).
That feels to me like we got it right in one. Of course, we'll only really know when we start drafting the set and looking at the playtesting more seriously. And while those common manacylcers and forts may be fine for limited, it is quite possible that block constructed will call them too expensive to seriously consider.
Edit: I was responding to the post in general, but didn't realize I was talking in the 'controlling flood in the uncommon slot' page. Yeah, I can't see why using the land bouncing cards here can't be used to help the color fixing problems. In fact, this might help solve my "May not be strong enough for block constructed" quandry with the common solutions to multicolor decks.
Do we want to consider this for one of our few non-basic lands?
I like this. Shouldn't it be "Fortify--
, Return a land you control to its owner's hand," though?
Clever. I think this kind of tricksy land-drop-replacement works better at rare than at the borderpost-style common!
I think this is a very clever cycle of dual lands. And most sets couldn't include it because they don't include Fortifications, so it's a reasonable cycle of duals for this set. It's also interesting that they do hose Flood (at a cost of bouncing all your flooded lands). I like it.
Since they're just analogues of Coastal Tower given the Fieldmist Borderpost treatment, they might even be better suited to uncommon.
The interactions with black and with things that like being fortified are just pleasing gravy :)
I like the current
0/2; I could also get behind 
2/1, actually. Gives the tapper a bit more to do when it's not not needed to tap.
I'm not sure if we want this, but the idea jumped out at me.
It uses the borderpost trick to make fortifications that basically take the place of dual lands, which also provides a convenient self-land-bounce to counteract flood, like Deepmine Trenches.
We could also use this trick on the signets, instead of having them be
cost artifacts, and have dual-colour signets at rare instead.
Notice that it shares the property with deepmine trenches that if you do everything in the right order, you can tap bounce as many lands as you like for free, which may or may not be too convenient.
In fact, since this has a fortify cost anyway it may be a good time the fortify cost
and increase the ability.
Yeah, there's no way to keep everyone happy when they want mutually contradictory things... :)
Yeah. It's also a problem when people list options like (a), (b), (c), (d). Blame Vitenka for creating Lower case symbols :P I think C is trying to be the Planechase Chaos symbol, but I haven't uploaded it...