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 2026-03-13 13:53:36)
At the very least it should cost 7, so I jumped it to seven. It's funny, though. Any other block and it would cost 6. In normal Magic it will often be 'weaker' than Akroma's Vengeance. Hmm... There's an interesting debate boiling behind that problem.
How about "Return all enchantments to their owner's hand, then destroy all non-land permanents." That's not a complete route, since you probably don't have the ability to replay your board full of dudes, but it certainly sets you up for the win. I'd say, with that, we could jump back to 6cc.
Weird how those two cards are interchangable. Hmm... Pacifism + Raise Enchantment. Does it need to be a sacrifice effect? Could it be a etb, or is that too good? I got to admit that new-and-improved Tied in Ribbons chaining into Tie with Ribbons when you, I don't know... Wrath of Goded could seem a bit strong.
'Can't attack or block' feels a bit more red to me, while returning to your hand... feels white to me... though I can't see why, since it should probably feel blue. I like white self-bouncing, though.
Either way, this card is stuck in one of many unfortunate choices to get do what it needs to do. A shame. I really like the fact that this silly little creature walked around O-Ring effects like they didn't matter.
It is possible that we have enough complexity points for this. How do complexity points work, anyways? Can we have one strange card in each color? I wish to quantify an abstract.
I do still agree with jmg that it's a bit too good, and I still think we should try it at
1/1. But the basic nice things people were saying about it (it's an accelerant that's useful early on and is useful late-game) are all still true in that case, so it ought to be okay.
I agree that each colour should have some strong rewards for going monocolour. Blue definitely has that in Serpent of the Endless Sea. I'm not sure if the CCC cards are enough for that.
It may be that Serpent of the Endless Sea only felt so dominant because red can't burn it, green can't do anything to it, and white theoretically could Pacify / O-Ring it but the blue deck has loads of answers to that (counter, counter, bounce). Or just play more gigantic island-themed creatures than the white deck has removal spells. Bigger or more effective blockers or counterattackers might help, I suppose.
But yes, I think the one-hoop model wants addressing. It does feel silly that "islandwalk is too good", but that does seem to be the spot we're in. Tapped-islandwalk is an ingenious idea. I can't tell if it'd lead to board stalls or to games where the nonblue player is looking forward to drawing more lands late-game.
I also do like the idea of a cycle of sweep spells like Charge Across the Araba, except that they'd feel somewhat odd in, say, a red-on-white matchup, somewhat irrelevant; and even actively at odds with green's minor have-lots-of-lands theme.
Link's idea of some creatures that bounce lands could be a cunning solution. I fear it would need some mechanical interactions with the other colours for it to look like anything other than a jarring "we were trying to make Flood more interactive".
OK, this should either be -2/2 with intimidate, or a more normal firebreather. For now, I've gone with the simpler version (which is probably still reasonably good, I think firebreathers are crippled by needing a big mana investment, so starting off at R 0/2 or 2R 2/2 makes them pretty good). But if anyone wants to suggest anything else, go ahead.
Yeah. Although, the whole point of this card was the enchantment digging, so although I like the token version, that's not something we specifically have to have, so we can switch this for something else (notably, an evasion creature?).
This is great in the set. In monoblue, it's an absolute terrifying beating. But monoblue may be quite hard to achieve in Limited, and it's probably fine for Constructed to have a finisher that's at common.
This card's future will hang on how good it is in a two-colour deck. There'll probably be enough Flood to let it attack, but will its smaller size make that okay? We need to build some two-colour decks and find out.
Or maybe it should just be "target fungus"? That way it's likely to counter the first hostile spell of a turn, but let the next through, which seems about right for common?
Oh yeah, the first card I ever thought of for white was "Enchantment Court Homunculus". It's a bit obvious, but very apt. It would be a great shame to lose the interesting variations with the exiling (I loved exiling this turn 1, then returning it to gain 1 life with aura soother), but it's very good to know there's a simpler place we can go if we want.
FWIW I never found the power on Court Homunculus a problem: once I'd seen it, I assumed it was almost always a 2/2.
Curiously, qqzm is amongst the Spikiest of the players I know. He just doesn't think this is very good. But as I say, I disagree. It was hard to tell last night because the blue deck was so aggressive (and had good counterspells) it didn't really want to take time out to do a little sorcery-speed deck manipulation.
Hmm, don't over-worry about my suggestion of 1/2. That was a bit of a throwaway idea. It's probably fine for a colour to have some good enablers. I feel something needs to be done about the power of blue, but maybe I'm worrying too much based on the unrealistic monocolour deck; it'll be hard to assemble one of them in sealed or draft, after all.
It seems to me from what people have said, mill cards definitely have a home -- in 8+ (preferably 15?) person booster draft, if there are even a comparatively small number of mill cards, it may be possible to draft a mill deck with lots of each of them (because no-one else wants them, so you can get all of the ones at the table). And some people (both pros and amateurs) really enjoy this.
However, I've never been in that situation, so to me, mill cards have been almost always completely useless (unless I'm making a dedicated mill deck in a non-sanctioned format). And I think the same applies to most other players, even good and experienced ones?
Hence, opinion is very split.
So it seems this card is serving three very different functions:
So, um, I'm not sure. If we keep it, perhaps it should be rewritten so it's more blatant that you can (probably should) target yourself? Maybe add "draw a card" but let you put two cards on top of the library?
I agree manacycling might not want to stay on the CCCs.
"Pay more to target me" would definitely address the issue. I'm not sure if it might go too far.
This did feel like a pre-equipped Invisible Stalker though, so something needs to be done.
We didn't have any Fortifications in the decks last night due to them being quite hastily assembled. I think it's fine to keep it as is for another playtest at least.
I think it should still have
as well as 
. It is blanket invulnerability for your guys and/or nerfing pump spells/auras for the opponent's guys. After we made that change it got killed pretty quickly due to being tapped, and I didn't see the rest of the games with the green deck so I don't know if it came out after that.
Yeah, I agree. It worked well when playing against qqzm whose playstyle is influenced by MTGO: he just put the exiled creature off beside his graveyard. Otherwise it was a little fiddly but did play very well.
"Can't attack or block" does indeed seem very sensible.
Alternatively we could make this a straight "s/artifact/enchantment/" on Court Homunculus. That's a little boring but does at least keep it straightforward. (OTGH, it's simpler in a different way if the printed P/T is the P/T that actually applies most of the time, which this design has and Court Homunculus doesn't.)
LOL, yeah, I wanted Winds of Rath in an Uril the Miststalker EDH deck :)
But my point is, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to make sure all your creatures are enchanted: you have to play a deck that specifically does that, and even then you may draw too many creatures and not enough auras. But Dag naturally goes in a mono-white deck, and in this set mono-white decks BY DEFAULT will ALL be immune to this. To me, that suggests it should cost more than Winds (probably 2 more?)
Yes, this was good. There was one criticism along the lines of "It's too fiddly to watch your side of the board as well as mine - can the card just say 'under your control'?" But I think it's fine to follow the precedent of Leonin Elder, Soul Warden, and Soul's Attendant. (And Auriok Champion for a
equivalent.)
Thank you!
I don't think it can get much better than this, given Ashenmoor Gouger had a drawback. I think this was fine: 4/3 is bigger than white would normally get at 4 mana - you'd normally have to pay
for it - so this felt pretty useful in playtesting.
I'm biased because I suggested this, but I quite liked it in play. Even +0/+1 is a bit hard to remember, I wouldn't suggest a more complicated bonus.
It's hard to get it to matter as a combat trick, I usually just played it, but I still think it will sometimes (a 2/2 vs a 2/2 its just what you need).
Yeah, this was nice. A bit reminiscent of Warren Pilferers, in fact. But then Jack proposed switching things about with (((Tie in Ribbons))) to end up with a pacifism with "Sac: get back an enchantment", which would presumably end up with this creature having "Sac ~: Put [two/three] 1/1 white enchantment creature tokens OTB", which also sounds quite good.
What I like about this card:
However, it makes sense to move one of the mana to the sacrifice effect. The free-sac feels pleasingly otherworldly, but at common it keeps things more interactive if people have to leave mana open.
But I think the current version is trying to do too much at once.
Possible simpler versions:
Ooh, I like Jack's ideas, particularly switching it for the effect from Enchantment Digger.
I enjoyed playing mono-white quite a bit. It seemed to be the middle aggro-against-green control-against-red colour, which is probably natural for white.
But the aggro game I played urgently needed evasion! White still has nothing better than soulcapture lance, and would usually have at least a couple of fliers.
I like the idea of the tension "do I want to keep the pacifism, or do I want to trade it in for the tokens". But I think the problem is that it almost never will matter: a pacifism effect will typically eliminate a creature sufficiently good that letting it go for three tokens will very rarely be correct, and 80% of the time, the opponent will have no way of getting rid of it. So 80% of the time this will be an expensive pacifism, which 20% of the time will have a random upside when you didn't expect it.
I definitely like the idea, but I somehow feel there'll never be an interesting choice between pacifism and tokens, even if they're equally good, I feel people will just feel bad about making the choice. I don't know if I'm too pessimistic, but my instinct is to rework it so both effects are more likely to matter.
Eg. Make this cheaper and switch the enchantment-dig effect onto this from Enchantment Digger, so when you have a sufficiently good enchantment creature in the graveyard, you can sacrifice this to bring it back to hand and cast it, possibly big enough to hold off whatever was pacified.
Eg. Make it cheap but make it naturally expire somehow, for instance, requiring an upkeep cost, or expiring when your opponent has their last other creature die.