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 21:04:47)
Wow, this looks pretty mad. MoLaG plus SoDaR on one card is pretty close to "protenction from all colours".
I agree about avoiding common nonbasics, and perhaps uncommons too, but I would like to be sure that we have the manafixing for a heavy-gold deck. I think some rare duals would be fine.
Indeed we didn't include fortifications or artifacts in the mono decks we played; I'd like to play with some of them to find out.
White gets +1/+N and +2/+N, but never +3/+N; that's pretty much exclusively green, with only extremely rare exceptions. The idea of double +2/+2 lifelink for
seems reasonable - interestingly it's a double Moment of Heroism, and I might find myself wondering what's green about that.
Haha! Nice interactions like that between our disparate themes are very rewarding; all the more so when people not on the design team discover them :)
That's excellent feedback.
Yeah, I'm not sure of the best way, especially because some of the best suggestions are mentioned in the comments, but then don't have cards associated with them.
I think anything that's likely, it's reasonable to put in the skeleton (or mark active?), but when you're designing the skeleton seriously, it's fine to clear it out and put back in stuff according to how necessary it seems.
Looks good to me. Combination of 'hasn't quite been done like that' and the drawback of not hitting everything can be argued away by exclaiming that 0/2 is better than 1/1 on a creature with this ability (that's probably a wrong argument, but it's defendable).
OK. My thinking is: do we need more manafixing? If so, they should be mana-fixing fortifications. If not, do we need more fortifications? But I suspect if we don't need them for mana fixing they may be more useful as a 14th coloured card? I don't know.
OK, put that text in.
Not sure about size. It should probably be about as good as blinding mage or avacynian priest and not quite as good as Gideon's Lawkeeper. It should have a
or 
activation cost.
My instinct is that I'd rather have something focussed on tapping than something that was also a big 1/3 blocker, but I don't know if that's right or if that's just me.
Ideally I'd like something that cost 1CMC, but tapped a more restricted subset of things, to promote more interactivity, but I'm not sure what the restriction would be. Possible based on CMC? But then we'd lose the colour-restriction, which we somewhat care about.
What do people like?
W 0/2? W 1/1? 1W 1/2? 1W 1/3?
Seems strong right now, but I know we're working on pushing white. We'll see how this tests.
Oh, heh, those common land slots were so far down the file, that I didn't notice them. Yes, the common land slots should be removed. The same, I assume, applies to the uncommon and rare slots, though, they probably need to be changed into artifacts. No one's fought me on this point, so I assume everyone is cool with this.
I remember someone leaning over our game in store and asking "What makes this card White?", and the person I was testing with responding, "Well, the boost makes it green, but the card has lifelink. That's the White part."
I found that an interesting exchange. To me, both white and green have boost (Green is better, but whatever) and this hits two creatures, so asking for both colors seems right. I don't know if the general public, however, would see that as wrong. I think it looks good like that.
"we should have a higher density of creatures that grant evasion when they etb, so that you can get some solid hits in, but you've still got to play the game on the ground"
This analysis sounds spot-on to me. Let's make a couple of sample cards and put them in the skeleton.
I did, just cause. I don't think I'm too big a fan of putting things in the skeleton ahead of time. On one hand, it narrows my options when looking at all the material, and makes me think that I need to work around it, instead of treating it as equally likely to make the cut and equally likely not. On the other hand, I do fear that I will make a mistake and not include it because it got buried in the files. When I made my pass at the commons, I think I successfully dredged up every option, but I did miss one common somewhere. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer to this, unless I started opening up a pile of new sets to store cards in... which doesn't seem right. I guess I'll just have to stay on top of the submission pages.
Yeah, seems like a good idea. I chose "sac: return to hand" instead because that should have the same effect, but not come out and say totem armour. Although it may be too good you can do this optionally, it could go back to an auto-trigger if that reduces board complexity.
changed to self-bounce instead of hexproof
I agree with "sweep is a good idea, but other land-bouncing methods are probably better". Especially if they're fortifications.
Good point about fortifications replacing non-basic lands. We still have a cycle of common lands in the file, what were they earmarked for, do we still want them, or do we want to replace them with fortifications that mana-fix, or with something else?
Yeah, seems ideal. Put it in the skeleton provisionally?
OK, glad we overshot rather than undershot with GW, and I see we thought this was probably too strong but wanted to try it. And we were right, so so much the better :)
Possible tweaks are:
4WG. Inst. +3/+3 lifelink. 2WG. Sorc. +3/+3 lifelink. 2WG. Inst. +2/+2 lifelink. 2WG. Inst. +3/+3.
If it's that swingy, I think it makes sense to tone it down a bit rather than increase the casting cost: I don't know but I assume it's better for limited to have a 4-mana combat trick than a 6-mana win-the-game trick.
But any of the other options seem reasonable, which seems most interesting? I picked one at random provisionally, but does anyone else have a preference.
Equip 6->5 as per jmg's suggestion
Cool!
Ah! I wasn't sure how useful these would be, I'm glad they're well received!
Conversely, I'm always leery of praise for manafixing, because I think everyone enjoys having it, so it's hard to tell when it's too much. I originally thought these might be too useful (since we already have a way of mono-colour fixing, ie. play mono lands), but now I think it's reasonable to ask drafters to choose between "mono deck" and "two colour deck that spends slots on mana fixing", after all, that's a similar choice to a usual draft where you have to choose how much two-colour fixing to play.
So far, these are getting high marks. The gentleman I playtested against today remarked "I wish they had these in the normal game."
So far, people's initial response to seeing fortifications is a bit of snickering, followed by "Oh, that one thing in future sight. Whatever." Later, when they read them and get to play with fortifications, they're won over. It's clear that they're responding to all the design space that we clawed out of this mechanic, and noticing our clever use of the space. Good job everyone.