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 2025-12-19 04:24:37)
It seems that a lot of us like this concept, but the execution is questionable. Want to take another stab, Jack? If you can tie a common ability into this nicely, this will probably be CA08.
Obviously, this card needs a change of name. Besides that, this thing is right on the money for common. Added to file.
Originally, the fortify cost was sacrifice a creature. I'm sure this is tied into black, and was for the same reasons why I made my Fortifications require some alternate form of payment, but if we're going to have one straight up man-land in common, we probably want it on the 0/6. Now it just feels like an 0/6 with "
, Sacrifice a land: Regenerate this creature." which seems fine.
I'm also leaning on just making this a normal creature. I like the oddity that this card is, but that line of text looks like it belongs with Mono-White, not the 'breath of fresh air' normal creature that this slot desires. Any body want to defend the quasi-creatureness of this card slot?
Added to file.
Jack didn't put a cost or activation on this. I added some rather steep costs, since this is reusable, potentially hidden and complicates attack steps, as well as encourages players to waste their resources and it's common. You know, I really want to defend the common status of this card, but there are just too many things that scream 'Alert! This should be Uncommon!' on the card.
The card does have one more shot at being a common in the set. I do like the idea of having a fortification that sacrifices itself and the land it is fortifying to destroy an attacking flying creature. Sky-Mine go boom... no re-usability, and the cards stats can go back to a normal number as well. Anybody else for this, or were people eager to play this as is, and want it bumped to Uncommon? (Or perhaps there's room for both ideas. There probably is...)
A rather strange entry to the file in that this card doesn't take advantage of its 'fortify-ness'. I'm cool with that, though. It's got good flavor, and shows players what the fortifications could have been if we weren't stretching so hard. Added to file.
Increased fortify cost from
to 
because... well... I would probably play this card over Fervor if it cost 
all together. Truth is, there was nothing wrong with In the Web of War either, and that's a comparable card, but maybe the fact that this doesn't give the bonus to a Goblin Offensive makes up for it. I like the ability in common, but we should pay attention to those costs.
Added to file.
Changed from 4/4 to 6/4 because... well...
is a lot to pay every turn. You might as well get 6 damage for your money. Added to file.
Right now it's permanent, which makes it much more powerful. Is it supposed to be until end of turn?
Aerans Nexus definitely seems like a better fit at common.
May not really be a common, since this bugger has a tendency to hide... but then again, so doesn't most of the Creature/Fortifications. Originally, this sacrificed Minions and was black, but black artifacts aren't trendy this year, so I cut out black and minions and increased the cost to play and fortify by
each. Still strong, but not automatically playable, in my opinion.
Added to file.
Makes sense. Moving the Foamcaster out of common, unless someone rallies to its defense.
Makes sense. Edited. Don't forget that this card also says "Index for 8, then mill yourself 7." If I'm being pummeled by a flyer, say, I'm targeting myself with this thing. Pretty versatile card, but definitely in common zone, and seems fine for mana cost.
Yeah, you're watching me split my brain into two parts an argue with myself there. One that thinks it's a good idea to change it, and one that thinks its a good idea to leave it alone. They didn't communicate very well with each other, however, and both acted like the other one wasn't in the room talking at the same time, so they kind of contradicted each other and said the same thing. ;)
The 'problem' is that this encourages you to turn multiple lands you control into islands... not your opponent's lands. It does seem to be a minor distinction, though. We'll see if anyone else makes a kerfuffle, but I'll probably leave this alone.