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 09:04:15)
What if this was
and said "Destroy target artifact or enchantment with CMC X or less. Add X green mana to your mana pool"?
It doesn't have to have intimidate, or amy keyword, really.
We could have our common color-fixing land do that. Maybe wit could tap for
and also tap and remove a counter frkm something for mana of any color.
Come to think of it, we still have a cycle of lands, we could have abilities with "T, remove a counter from a land you control: blah" or similar? That's a bit blatant, and too annoying to clutter up common with lands with counters on, but would be one way of having a mechanic that naturally limited blue.
Sorry, we probably should have tried that, but what we wanted for this card got lost in the shuffle. I keep coming back to this -- I like it, but the intimidate version is definitely pushing the upper bound of common red creatures in both power and complexity.
My worry is that commons should not be too swingy. I think this is comparable to Bladetusk Boar (which is quite good, but notice that red usually gets very little evasion other than "can't block" at all, Bladetusk Boar was a promising exception), except that it's often less good (becuase you need to dump RRR into it before it does anything at all) but sometimes better (because if you have 6 mountains to spare, you can often squeeze through 4+ damage per turn, which is a very efficient finisher -- there's a reason X burn spells aren't usually common any more, because too often the win comes out of nowhere).
But if I get to playtest again, I'll try the intimidate version.
"I think we'll get a few confusing questions as to why we needed to reprint Flamekin Brawler, but change his name."
It doesn't have to be these stats, it can be any small firebreather. But it's totally fine to print a reprint with a new name -- I think wizards do that whenever it's convenient to have a reprint, but the original name or creature type don't work.
FWIW, I think you're doing fine. It's very good to avoid narcism in that sort of role :) But I think it's good to keep expressing opinions, as long as that doesn't supress other people from expressing their opinions, and I don't think it has been doing, at all :)
Would having a green, land version of Master Transmuter be too ouch for common? Possibly. But we could put the "moonfolk" cycle at uncommon. That way, you're still fairly likely to get one, and they aren't clogging up our common slots.
I like the flavor, but there's too much downside for that to really appeal to me, cmeister.
Might be too complex an idea for common (so Maro would shoot it down), but how about some sort of "tidal" mechanic reference?
"Play with the top card of your library revealed; for as long as that card is an Island, Flooded lands are Islands"
I don't like negative power at all, but maybe that's just me. If we have it, it just feels like something that should be a theme, and I don't think we want that. If we made the activation
on a 0/2 with intimidate, perhaps it could be in a verticle cycle with Seethe Lasher.
When I make comments from my Kindle, it's hard to avoid typos, and frustrating to fix them. Sorry. :) What if this exiled your enchantments UEOT, then destroyed everything?
Good point, I'd forgotten that, I think avoiding bottlenecks at CMC are important, although I'd guess that most white removal spells want to be in the 2-4 range so they probably do get close.
Edit: Innistrad has bonds of faith, rebuke, and smite the monstrous at 2, 3 and 4
Beyond the playing the numbers game with the skeleton, I don't know if we want two removal spells with similar costs in common. I think I intentionally kept TiR high because Lance was low. I have no idea if that's really something worth keeping decisions around, however. Can we think of a modern environment that had a 2cc removal spell and a 3cc removal spell? Is such a thing "Okay?"
Noted. Am I writing in "Can't attack or block" on this card for now, or are people okay with the ability as stands for now?
I changed the casting cost based on testing, not based on my opinion of the card. I kind of wish I didn't make my point so admatantly before. Sometimes I forget that my role is to observe what other people think, not to take sides.
Well, right now this is Flamekin Brawler exactly. I think we'll get a few confusing questions as to why we needed to reprint Flamekin Brawler, but change his name.
Did you get a chance to try -2/+2 with Inimidate? Is that a playable card?
Probably. Excess flood cards can always be aimed at yourself, so, in a 2 color deck, I expect this guy to be a 4/4 when you have 6 lands. Not insane, but a good place to start.
"'Can't attack or block' feels a bit more red to me, while returning to your hand... feels white to me..."
I agree. (I think self-bounce is white, and self-bounce and enemy-boune are both blue?) I don't like "can't attack or block" is right, just a reasonable placeholder until we decide what mechanically appropriate effect has the effect we'd like.
@jmg: If people are convinced to change this, I would start by changing this to be whatever we want (probably, 2W pacifism. W, sac: return another enchantment from the graveyard to hand. Although come to think of it, that could be annoying if two of these keep bouncing each other!), then replacing Enchantment Digger by a simple evasion creature (I like Lightmare), then looking at the file and bumping something else up in size to 5CMC if we think that's necessary.
@jmg: That's quite likely, it probably depends what I'm most used to playing with. I agree if there's powerful equipment, the tokens will be very powerful. (Although that's still a problem, because most sets have a white pacifism, not a white pacifism you don't play :))
Added GG, but didn't change to 'target fungus' because I didn't want to overreact by adding every suggestion (plus, the GG in activation... we should remember to do that more in the uncommon slots. That's a very good lean to mono.)
We should keep an eye on this one. I wouldn't like it being a 5-star card, but I also wouldn't like this as a 1.5 star card.
PS. On reflection, it's probably good that this exists (whatever it costs), even if it doesn't fill the wrath slot. What other set will ever print this? But it's interesting here. And it's not vital to have a wrath -- it's always rare, so it's not a big factor in limited, and in constructed the core set usually has Wrath.
How about "Return all enchantments to their owner's hand, then destroy all non-land permanents."
That's an interesting idea, I was thinking something quite similar. This is a bit crazy, but how about "destroy all creatures, exile all artifacts, return all enchantments to their owner's hands?" I don't care about artifacts much, but it seems more symmetrical than "destroy creatures and artifacts, bounce enchantments".
(That'd change the decision about the sacrifice effect of the pacifism variant, but we don't need to worry about that yet, we should design the best card in abstract.)
Hah! I find it funny that a 6/1 for RRR is stupid good, but a 4/3 for WWW could use some more oomf. I feel you, though.
Move
from casting cost to the activation and made it colored. I like shields down moments as well. The colored activation was added because we could... the set is supposed to like mono, and this is a chance to get a card to be better in mono, but definately useable if you're just splashing the white.
Also removed Flash. That's not to ignore Jack's list... it was just the easiest thing to do that made sense, so I took the easy option. I'm more than happy to change the card again if people prefer one of the other options. Though, I must admit, I don't like option 4. I'd hate to hear about the game where someone lost because they forgot to sacrifice their enchantment and gain 3 life. Or the opposite, where someone thought they won, but their opponent sacrificed their enchantment. No thank you.
I did feel white was seriously missing evasion.
@Jack: I think you underestimate how often 3 1/1s would be a better choice than a Pacifism. I'd push my percentage up, and would favor the 1/1s as being the more likely choice if we had common equipment. That being said, you're right. There are legions of people who hate having to make this choice. Sometimes its worth ignoring them, and sometimes it isn't. We probably shouldn't ignore them on an otherwise simple common.
I'm not changing this over immediately to Enchantment Digger's ability, only because we aren't square with what we want exactly. See Enchantment Digger. When we do, I'll change this and request a 5cc creature, probably with evasion.