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 13:53:37)
Winds of Rath puts beneficial wrathing at
, but then there are those that say that that card is broken :) (those people are usually the ones I'm playing with my hexproof-auras deck, but hey)
I like the idea, but I agree that "reset the board" is a different slot to "wipe out your half of the board". The first is vital for catching up from behind (the wrath of God variant at anywhere up to six mana I think is always really useful, because it's the answer to 80% of dire situations) but the second also catapults you into the lead in a semi-even situation.
Mass Calcify or Martial Coup suggest these normally cost abotu 7 mana -- which is more than you'd normally pay, but is probably worth it if you expect the game to get to seven mana.
I like a "cares about enchantments" wrath, it seems very apposite, but can anyone think of a variant that's less backbreaking?
Seems about right. It's a shame that you can't usually reuse the returned card the same turn, but I think it's right that you naturally play this on turn 5 or later, when there's normally already something interesting in your graveyard.
This card needs to do something more interesting. A common 4/3 is reasonably good, but it doesn't feel like a big reward for paying CCC.
I liked it.
The exile clause is confusing (even without the wording issues to solve "what if we have two of these"). In the sample deck, since ALL white permanents are enchantments, it's seemed almost always on, but that's probably about right, given that previous "need a creature" creatures have often been crippled on turns 2 and 3 if you can't play a second creature or it gets traded.
I'm giving serious consideration to "can't attack or block" instead of exile. That's less interesting, but more straightforward. (Alternatively, it could return to hand at end of turn if you control no enchantments, or something.)
This was a little confusing to remember, since it ties a creature, an aura and an exiled card together (eg. it's inconvenient to put the exiled card face down with the aura), but it was fun, the question of what creature to put it on (one that needs first strike, one that's not going into combat, one that your opponent is less likely to kill) is very interesting, as is the question of when it goes away, but without being too complicated.
As we begin playtesting, it becomes apparent that we need a head developer to address issues of balance and helping us to work toward a final playable product. As head designer, I'm more than capable of taking my role to the next level and doing that work, too. But the tradition of separating design from development is a good one. I'd rather have a duumvirate (Ooh! 25 cent word coming through!) helping to assure that this set is of multiple designer's visions coming forward.
So, anybody want to take on a chunk of responsibility?
Oh, one final thing. If you do become head developer, you'll have a lot of say as to how the final product comes out. I would suggest that you only make decisions, however, if no one has an opinion on a subject, or if two people are at a stalemate, and we need to move forward. If someone disagrees with your idea, I would suggest backing down and letting the other person's perspective win. If something can go either way, I'd suggest opening the question to other people on the team, and getting someone else to decide. No one's being paid to do this work. People can, and will back away from this project as soon as they think their input doesn't matter. The fastest way to get someone to think that, is to use your authority to override somebody when they disagree with you.
I typed my comment, then got distracted before I posted it, okay?
Keep up, dude. Dag was so, like, 2 minutes ago.
Alternatively? This could also say "Destroy all blue, black, red and green creatures". In set, that would almost mean the same thing.
"Dag"?
on (((Tie in Ribbons))) Link mentioned that this effect would make sense as this set's board sweeper. Makes sense to me, though, I have no idea what the proper cost of this is, since, in Mono-White this is a lot like a Plague Wind.
I chose the name to make fun of Link's typo on Tie in Ribbons. :) I'll change it when the card and mechanics settle more.
I don't see any reason why I can't change this, so I changed it. Terrain Warping Beacon seems like it wants to be a resilient card anyway. If it's too powerful, we can just change its numbers.
Makes sense. Changed to
. Did the card seem playable just sitting around like that with a bud counter, or was it annoying?
Aww. No love for the 'combos with Fortify' mechanic? I can believe it. Keeping this highlighted.
:(
I suppose this was always a threat with with these guys. Keeping this comment on alert until we have a plan.
That's probably the response we're aiming for... trying to reward a specific player for that way that guy always played. I know that when Hellbent hit, some people liked it, some people balked at it, but some people LOVED it.
Weird. I take it there were a few games where nothing happened early, or there was some early removal and a player took 12 damage and had to block with a 3/3 or something.
I'd suggest 5/1, but this is tied into the Monoblue question, so I guess we need to know if we're trying to bring up the other colors to match blue before jilting this creature.
Raar! Fish!
I admit, that's a very simple line of text. It's technically missing Manacycling, but I don't think Manacycling is sticking on the CCCs anyways.
Crazy. Had you taken this card out of the context of this set, it would probably be 2-3 stars, depending on if a set had a serpent or an islandwalker in common. Or maybe a bunch of UU spells.
I'm afraid of turning this into a 1/2, lest the card never be played, except by people who've drafted this set alot. It sounds like a Morbid Hunger problem. You know that story, right? It's like a 3rd pick that gets passed around 14th because it looks too expensive, but it's secretly super good.
Do you think 0/4 would work? Defender? 0/3? There's a lot of negative stigma with Squire...
Oops, that was silly of me. I like it at three tokens and sacrifice, because that will lead to some interesting play situations. I do have an odd desire foe this to work with board sweepers, though. Om a vaguely related note, what if the Day of Judgment variant for this set was "Destroy all nonland, non-enchantment permanents?"
Huh. For the record, this is one of my favorite cards of the set. I can accept that this card requires a certain mindset, however. Very Spike.
You know, I'd take up the gauntlet and argue one way or the other, but this sounds a lot like the "should card draw be targeted" point/counterpoint that Maro and Zac Hill just did. You're right, there's more syntax for new players to deal with. But, that's technically a teaching tool... and in this case, it's a teaching tool that requires less words. But, all things being equal, we want new players to have a better chance at beating established players. And back and forth and back and forth.
Should if you do be added to looting effects? I couldn't tell you. I can ask the rest of our designers if if you do should be added to this card however. Anybody besides noyahuid and I want to make a deciding vote?
I'm super pleased by this report. It tells us that we did some things right and some things wrong and that we know what the wrong things are... I couldn't ask for a better playtest response... and that's from a guy who, you know, actually playtests games for companies.
I guess the only question nobody raised so far in this discussion is "is it possible we need to increase the quality of the mono-colored cards in other decks instead of do something to these cards". The big, big problems seem to be Serpent of the Endless Sea and Glistening Kraken. Do these cards seem broken because the other colors don't have equivalent monsters in their CCC and CCCCC slots? Or is the problem the one hoop model?
My guess, having not been involved in the playtest, is that we should do something about the one hoop model. 'No player interaction' is generally not fun. There's a lot of good suggestions in here about how to deal with it... I don't want to muddy those arguments by leaning on one way of doing it. But I'd also guess that we could use something explosive like Serpent of the Endless Sea in all the colors. The CCC slots probably need to be toyed with too.