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 01:17:39)
I like that idea. I think it's good if some cards (quite a small number) want a lot of flooding to have happened. That might be overly based on having played the monoblue deck though; I'm not sure how well it'll work in a two- or three-colour deck.
We didn't play black on Tuesday, but out of the other four colours, white felt like it had the best removal. Soulcapture Lance certainly felt like removal, albeit quite vulnerable removal. Runearrow Archer works a bit like a tapper, but I'd definitely support having a straight-up Goldmeadow Harrier / Master Decoy. In fact, Goldmeadow Harrier would give white its controlling one-drop where Woven Life is the aggressive one-drop.
Oh, the Rusted Relic approach. Yes, very sensible.
That works much more sanely, I feel.
Oh, one last suggestion before I remind Jack that he's editing these cards now. How about "As long as you control another enchantment, ~ becomes a 2/2 Creature-Construct. It's still an enchantment."
You see all those "Edited Giant Hermit Crab"s up there. Each time I hit this card, I think I made it a touch better. It went from "Mercadian Masques Common", through our modern power levels, to, probably Magic 2017.
I don't know if we want to use Defender to solve all our problems. We do probably want more defender in the smaller creatures, since there's so much evasion in this set... but on the big creatures, it has a tendency to stop combat altogether.
Really, though, this could probably be okay as a 4/3 or 4/4. The dream of a giant Hermit Crab wrecking limited will be lost, but we already have Serpent of Endless Seas for that.
I can say, from my very small playtest of multicolor, that you don't have to worry too much about white's ability to evade. It seems to have some of the best fliers lined up in it's color... it just won't play them unless you have a second color.
This puts me a bit on the fence on whether white needs evasion. I do like the idea that mono-white, which normally has it, has to live with fighting on the ground in this set... but if that's the problem, you're absolutely right, Jack, that White will need something extra to push through. I'm thinking we need some tappers. Tappers can work as anti-flying and remove blockers. If we can get a straight up tapper in the file, and slip an 'accidental' tapper in the file, White will have a lot of tools to deal with the other teams...
Just changed the card to reflect what you said, Link, and moved it to the Uncommon Sheet. Let's see if we can get new legs out of this. BTW, I like how this helps out mono.
Tapped land-walk... I like that. It does, however, go against the premise of "Flood one land, Bud many creatures". That being said, that principle might be on its way out. I had the chance to play a game tonight, and could already see that, whether we intended it or not, multiple lands were going to get flooded...
While we're talking about this, is there a chance that we want to split up two or three layers of flooding? Perhaps one flood counter for most cards, three flood counters needed for some cards and 5 counters needed for a couple rares/mythics?
At some point we're going to start working on making some uncommons, so we might as well pull the conversation from the Blue Commons Submissions over here.
So far, it seems that the big contenders are:
And, of course, there's some arguments of how to control flood on the cards that ask for flood in the first place. That isn't part of this discussion, however.
The lands that correct themselves is interesting, though, it conflicts with the fact that we previously agreed not to have any non-basic lands, because fortifications should be doing the heavy lifting. Fortunately, fortifications are doing the heavy lifting. I can't see why we can't have fortifications that suck counters off of lands for effects... that seems even better to me, since the mono-blue player can get one good turn before the fortification moves at sorcery speed and removes that flood counter.
So how many anti-flood cards should we preliminarily be making? One for each color and 2 Forts? That sound right?
Hold it. Before we work on this, however, we should discuss this: Do we plan to use 'Sweep' or not?
I like the
, but it does kind of break our, admittedly, no longer running cycle of colored breathers. Maybe I should just accept that. The double red activation already does something which I wanted: move people toward mono, but in a more subtle fashion.
I assume Link is cool with the card exiling all enchantments instead. If by everything, Link also is including lands... I'd say that that's bound to be an expensive spell, although, it's roughly just Jokulhaups. I think I like Link's second idea better than his first one, but I don't know whether we want a game finishing 8cc spell, or something closer to my idea. I could see us going either way...
Ah, well, I just passed the reigns over to you Jack, so the decision is yours now. Also, I'm allowed to argue more. Grrr.
Unfortunately, I have nothing to argue about. I'm cool with people's suggestions.
Tom had a comment that Manacycling doesn't do what we think it does... and he's right. Currently, the mana that gets added to your pool is in the reminder text only. It doesn't really make any sense to have two cards say the exact same thing, but have different reminder texts.
His solution was to have the card say "When you cycle this card", but that feels bad to me, and would be yet another line of text on a lot of cards competing for the space. It does seem that we can make these cards say "Manacycling -
, Discard this card from your hand: Add 
to your mana pool. Draw a card." Or some other idea along these lines.
Tom got really excited when he used this card with Manacycling as a combat trick. Pay 3, draw a card, use the
to activate the ablity. Manacylcing and Enlighten are awesome together. As a matter of fact, in the future, if we are asking ourselves "What is the proper activation cost for this Enlighten ability?" I would say that the proper cost is probably 
.
A good card, made better with Enlighten in the same set. Unfortunately, Soft Filter is also in the set, making these two cards uncomfortably similar.
I'd ask this card to become +0/+4, but I got a better idea. Why don't we turn this into a Divination slot? Blue doesn't have anything in that spot, and I'm sure we can come up with some interesting variation that involves white somehow.
I suckered a friend of mine to help me print up 4x common sheets and put some decks together (Hi Tom, if you're reading this, and thank you). Tomorrow, my league gets together, and I'll be able to get some more feedback. So far, there's only three decks: W-U-G and U-B-R (with one of each fortification), in an attempt to get some feedback on multicolor, and a Mono-White deck for contrast (with the anti-flying cards sporting 3x, and the rest of the cards on 2x duty).
We did get a chance to play one quick game of the two 3 color decks in before I had to run to work. The good: Manacycling is great. Enlighten + Manacycling is awesome. The bad: A lot of vanilla creatures. Tom didn't seem too distracted by this, since every card was new to him. But these CD flying bears and Manacyclers can be a bit unexciting. That's probably fine, assuming three color decks with a heavy gold concentration doesn't pop up that much in limited.
That's a better response than I was expecting, to be honest. I'm more than happy to pick up the slack if you find that you can't keep up with your duties.
How shall we do this? I assume, from this point on, I am no longer editing any of the common cards, and leaving that duty to you?
In play this turned out to be fiddly and easy to forget.
I think "can't attack or block" is fine, and self-bouncing is pretty odd especially for a common.
True. We shouldn't be wedded to this design because it's a nice design, if pacifism or shackles would be better for the set. (There's plenty of other cards that can do enchantment digging if we don't want it here, it should just be somewhere.)
If we did tapped-islandwalk, we could try to squeeze a little more tapping in somewhere to give blue a way to break stalls. Overflood is already tailor-made for that :)
Did this come up in playtest? Blue only occasionally gets two 4+ power sea monsters at common. I'm not sure what I'd suggest as -1/+1 seems an appropriate firebreathing for blue, and that requires a reasonably high power. At a minimum it should probably have defender?
Two bouncing each other might not be any worse than Shackles. In fact, maybe this should just be Shackles.
I agree the costs don't want to be identical, but as long as they're somewhat different I don't think it matters much where they are.
Doing different things with my enchantments to everyone else's feels a bit too evocative of old confusing cards like Remove Enchantments.
Alex and Vitenka saw more of the playtest than I did (I hope to try again with Rachel over the easter w/e). I gather the general feedback on white is that it was quite fun, but lacked "oomph" compared the other colours.
We've still to decide what the appropriate power level is, but it sounds like appropriate tweaks for white would be:
I think we probably want to do all that.
If we want to do more, we can:
But I don't think we need to do that yet. Does that sound right to people?
I don't have much time I'm able to commit, and I'm not a competitive player so I don't have the background to develop something that would really stand up in constructed. But in the interests of sharing the load, I'd be happy to take it on provisionally...