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 2025-12-20 02:10:00)
Alright, then. Changing over.
I have that effect on people. :P
I don't know... that one I've been trying to figure out. If all the fungus ability did that, it would be a heck of a drawback to work around. But, if we always put the option in the hands of the caster, we wouldn't be able to cost very efficient creatures, and we run the risk of that player never putting a +1/+1 counter on their opponent's creatures, thus making a lot of lines like "~ can't be blocked by Fungus" irrelevant. I think the original idea, flavor wise, was to spread the fungal infection as much as possible. If players just decide to put a counter on one opponent's creature, and not the rest, we're missing on flavor.
I'd also say that your original idea of "put it on a creature that doesn't have one yet" is a good plan, except you would then clearly put it on the creature that is coming into play... that doesn't really solve the problem.
I figured that this was the most dramatic version, and as such, needed to be tested. It seems to me (and I could be very wrong about this) that if always putting counters on the opponents creatures works, then we should probably run with the more dramatic effect. I think there is a fair chance that this version can get off the ground, also, with cards like the fog we've been arguing over and cards that move counters around, putting them back on your creatures.
It is, however, quite possible that playtesting tells us that this is too swingy, or that people just respond to this as not fun. I definately see that.
Part of the problem is that "that Fungus ability" has a lot of words. I'd say that there is plenty of room in design for a lot of different variants... but that's a bit complex for the new player. I'm pretty sure we want to keep all the commons with the same line, then we can screw around with the uncommons. It might also be fair to say that all the commons might be giving your own creatures counters, and all the uncommons might be doing it to your opponents. I don't know.
Was not my intention, but now I don't know how I missed that. changing it right now.
I think my mind went all Enchantment Alteration and spontaneously decided it didn't need to target. But that's wrong. Simic Guildmage supports this as well. Changing.
Also added a
because mass reverse damage can't be that cheap...
That makes sense. It doesn't sound like the final solution, but I'm going to change it to that for now.
I don't really like that. That works against having your own Fungus; it's best in a deck with spells that make your opponents' stuff Fungus but otherwise as many non-Fungus creatures as possible! And it still does nothing at all if there are no Fungus on the board. I prefer the current wording to that version.
Now you could have something like "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn. Whenever damage by a Fungus is prevented this way, you gain that much life." That at least works as Fog if all your Fungus-makers are dead, while still being better-than-Fog in a Fungus deck.
Should this be worded like Leech Bonder?
I think this concept is fine, but the name might want to be changed. It's too close to being naughty.
Our set is going to have a lot of average words at common, but that's probably alright.
Also, are we sure we want to go the direction of only putting counters on opponent's creatures?
Oops, I didn't realize I wasn't signed in when I commented.
I try to finish the gold cards I started and put them on here later today. Maybe I'll try to work up some greens, but I'm just not really inspired to make green cards, and I've already looked over jmgariepy's and been tainted.
Heh. I quite like that idea. That will bring its own set of odd questions - "Why is it putting a +1/+1 counter on the creature if the creature can't use the extra power or toughness?!" - but those are easier to answer both within and outside the set. It works as a green Pacifism (FSVO works), and has nice in-set applications.
The funny thing about the fungus ability is that it is very grokkable, but it takes up a lot of words to get it all out there. If we broke the card down into logic chunks it would be
Enchant Creature
Fungus ability
Pacifism for a Fungus
Which is easy enough to parse mentally if this was the last common fungus you saw, but would be rather daunting if this was the first common fungus you saw.
So, I agree, it probably shouldn't stay as is. But I don't think I would be happy seeing this card just keep the "Pacifism for a Fungus" without anything else. Maybe this should come into play and put a +1/+1 counter on the creature... like a dangerous Pacifism for green... and not mention Fungus at all?
Hmm... that's reasonable. I kind of like the way it is written now, but I can see many players thinking the card is 'bad' because it doesn't straight up fog, plus something else. Plus, it will get simpler in the exchange anyway.
Double hmm... Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure how you do it. If the card said something similar to "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn by creatures that are not Fungus you control. (sic)" then this card wouldn't feed into the Fungus mechanic at all. It would just be a tribal fog... but it wouldn't care if your opponent had any Fungus creatures, or +1/+1 counters on them.
How about this instead: "Prevent all combat damage that Fungus would do this turn. You gain life equal to the damage prevented this way." That could be one hell of a trick to play... especially since your opponent's fungus is already +1/+1 bigger...
I think it'd be worth taking a lesson from Moonmist and making this work like Fog if there are no Fungus around at all, and conditionally better if there are. Sometimes in my Werewolf deck I don't have any Werewolves left alive and just need a Fog; it can serve that purpose in a pinch. I think this should do similar.
tweak wording
Yep, sounds good to me.
Hmm. The wording is very fiddly. I think green Pacifism has been growing in popularity recently (Utopia Vow was in Planar Chaos, but Arachnus Web wasn't, and Lignify played similarly). I like the idea of tying it to Fungusness, and indeed having a common that grants Fungusness to opponents' guys. But this is a lot of hoops to jump through to get what's basically a 4-mana Pacifism.
Nice card. Could exist without either of its keywords if we wanted to simplify (though it's probably good to keep hold of reach).
Oop. Just noticed Lumbering Mycoshamble. That may be a better choice. Both might be playable, if we want to forego vanilla creatures and say that these two are the vanilla creatures.
Well, the visual spoiler is set to only show cards with "Active" set. There are a couple of ways to get them all to appear for printing; either uncheck that cardset option (although that'll get us all the cards like Mono Blue as well), or create a details page with a bunch of cardname embeddings like
((Aurora Soother))").Again, this may be too much with the Fungus theme, but I'd rather go too far in one direction then cut back, than do the other.