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 21:27:35)
OK, violent zephyr was my favourite suggestion for this slot. I picked 1R 4dmg, but it could be anything like R 1dmg, R 2dmg, R 3dmg, 1R 2dmg, 1R 3dmg, 1R 4dmg, 2R 3dmg, 3R 4dmg depending how much we want to push it. I think it wants to be better than average in a red deck, but worse than average splashed into a deck which doesn't want to tap everything every turn.
We still need another couple of red commons, a player burn spell, a general burn spell, and something else.
This is taking the place of a player burn spell. It's deliberately a sorcery because I wanted it to fulfil the roll of "force through last few points of damage" rather than "aha! gotcha!", although you could do the other.
It was originally going to give the creature some form of evasion, but I thought trample was plenty. In fact, I'm surprised red doesn't have more like this: it seems to fill exactly the same slot as fling or goblin grenade, but be more creature combat-y.
But this is a throw-away idea, so feel free to suggest something else or something on-theme.
I like this, but I think I prefer the Final Charge version, since this has a risk of not doing anything. I think I may replace it with a simpler "pump one creature and give it evasion" as a fling variant?
I think I prefer this to icy tempest, but think this needs to be uncommon. Do people agree?
A common variant on things like Mistmeadow Skulk, to give white some evasion to replace flying.
I specifically wanted something that wouldn't just be ON or OFF but could be blocked by a subset of creatures, because if there's too much complete evasion the board can be become too race-y (although if there's not enough, it can become too stall-y).
I chose to just say "can't be blocked" rather than "protection" because I think that's still white enough, but I think it's simpler, and we don't specifically want more uber-blockers. (If we DO want more uber-blockers, we ccan switch it back)
The skeleton looks pretty good. Judging from the breakdown of recent sets http://multiverse.heroku.com/cardsets/162/details_pages/163, I think the biggest things we should probably have but aren't cemented in the skeleton yet are:
We have removal and runearrow archer and reach, so I think we have enough flying defense, but we still need some evasion.
The best possibilities are probably: protection from multicolor (eg. Weft Weaver), plainswalk (we probably want to avoid this to accentuate the differences from blue), intimidate (eg. Lightmare, which I like, even if intimidate isn't usually in common white), tap-on-attack (eg. (((gustrider))) which hasn't been common outside portal, but could be), or maybe a protection-from-high-CMC (eg. Sneaking Gust )
I would vote for not trying to have a single replacement (like islandwalk in blue), but having three-ish individual cards that each evade somehow.
White common needs some evasion, and this sort-of is. It's never been common outside portal, but given that white tappers are quite common, it seems like it could be common.
I don't know about the CMC/P/T, they could still be anything.
I talked about this elsewhere, but I don't think I made an actual card out of it. The downside is that +0/+1 is a small bonus, but global +0/+2 is probably too good for common.
But the reason I suggest is is:
Veteran Swordsmith suggests this could possible be +1/+0 instead, I'm not sure which plays better.
The simplest option would appear to be a disempower variant (to library or to hand), so you can add it to your deck defensively, but hopefully still get some use out of it by recurring one of your own creatures if your opponent isn't playing with any interesting enchantments.
A straight up "target enchantment creature gets +2/+2 OR exile target (non-creature?) enchantment" also seems reasonable. At first I wasn't sure if I wanted the alternate uses spelled out like that, but I think it's actually better to make it clear that it has two uses than to let people figure it out.
The question remains, should the player have the choice between pumping and destroying/exiling? It actually makes sense to me that a white card should be able to destroy opposing enchantment creatures (splashing one against white should be dangerous, as white should know all about them; just that white shouldn't have a card which is only good against them). But I think we should probably choose whichever wording is simpler.
Another possibility would be to have a "temporary exile target enchantment" card that can either save your own creature/enchantment and save it from destruction or reuse its ETB effect, or deal semi-permanently with an opponent's.
Alternatively, have a "target creature gains protection frmo enchantments (and enchanted creatures?) UEOT" effect? That helps against white more than it deals with opposing enchantments, but it can destroy enemy auras.
But on balance, I think one of the first two suggestions is probably best.
I like the idea here, but how about just "Enchanted creature has +2/+2 and hexproof"? I think that would make an aura that was very playable, which is sufficiently revolutionary in itself, and if so, it makes sense to seize all the simple commons that are appropriate for our set, since we will want complex ones in many slots.
I like the idea that white could have some strong uncommon and rare enchantments which would be worth hexproofing, but maybe have a "Enchanted enchantment has hexproof. Enchantment creatures you control get +1/+1." card at uncommon?
What do we want for this slot, then? :)
Do we want to make all the white instants into flash enchantments instead? I like the symmetry of that, if we can do it without the board getting too cluttered up, but appreciate it may be too weird.
If so, this could be simply "Flash. When ~ enters the battlefield prevent... Sacrifice ~: Gain 3 life." That's basically the same because usually people can trade it in immediately, but you may want to wait if you have an "enchantment matters" creature on the battlefield.
Or if we wanted it to be more enchantmenty but more complicated, it could become a "seal of healing", with the prevention effect on the sacrifice (probably splitting the mana cost between the mana cost and effect). I think the flash version is conceptually simpler, but the seal would use fewer words.
Seems good to me.
There's still plenty of room to move CMCs around.
I agree, "can't be blocked by flying creatures" is a gimme, it should be on some card, this one would be fine if we keep some evasion.
I'm amused by -2/2, although perhaps a 0/2 with "XRR: +X/+0" would be more traditional for common. In fact, I quite like that idea. I suppose it needs the "spend only red mana" clause, despite that being ugly, which makes me want to print -2/2 again, but I still don't think that's a good common :)
ETA: In fact, one evasion creature is probably right for red, and we already have Cavern Stalker which I like, so we probably don't want any others.
Hmm... I'm no fan of straight Chinese menu, but I understand when it comes up. Destruction spells seem to field a lot of them.
How about "Destroy target artifact. If you destroyed an artifact you control in this manner, deal six damage to target creature."
My LD comment still seems relevant, but, if you want, you could always flip it to: "Destroy target artifact. If that artifact is attached to a land, destroy that land."
Well, I'd suggest a -2/2 Intimidating Fire-Breather, but I think other people would have a problem with it. (I don't. Thumbs up for justice.)
Do you need to keep this card
for it to fill a slot in the curve, Jack? I haven't looked at red for a while. Will soon, with everything finalizing in the other colors.
Also, if we're going to have evasion in red in this set, shouldn't we have "can't be blocked by flying creatures"? Seems like the place to pull that seldom used line...
That's fair. I actually made this card not perfect to get people to tell me what card I should add in, though. :D
0/5 it is. While I agree with your premise, making this a 0/4 is getting dangerously close to turning your lands into chump blockers. Chumping with lands is going to happen, but I don't want it to be a regular thing. I'd much prefer adding to the cost and activation than going that route.
Yeah, you're right. I think we want a firebreathing card at common, so we should remove intimidate. It would be ok for this just to be a vanilla fire-breather, but does anyone have any other suggestions?
It could have conditional intimidate (if you control all/at least three tapped creatures, or if you activate the ability at least N times) but that's probably still too complicated/good for common. It could have a limit on the activations. Any other good ideas?