Savage Unity
Savage Unity by WOM Devign Team
48 cards in Multiverse
2 with no rarity, 13 commons, 13 uncommons,
14 rares, 6 mythics
5 white, 7 blue, 1 black, 13 red,
6 green, 4 multicolour, 9 hybrid, 3 artifact
86 comments total
Set 2 in the Wilds of Muraganda block
| Savage Unity: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Details Test |
Cardset comments (2) | Add a comment on this cardset
The set creator would like to draw your attention to these comments:
|
On Savage Unity (reply):
We decided to try introducing a new game term rather than writing out the somewhat clunky "creature with no abilities" everywhere. Right now we're trying "simple creature," but still on the lookout for synonyms that are short, descriptive, and neutral feeling. Creating an actual rules term for the property also lets us distinguish between "creatures that have no inherent abilities" and "creatures with no abilities at the moment." We're starting playtesting using the former definition, so a Grizzly Bears with Flight would still be a simple creature, but a Morphling targeted by Ovinize would not be. (More formally, there would be a new rule (probably in the 700s) that said "A permanent is simple if and only if it has no abilities after all effects from layer 1 have been applied.") |
On Savage Unity (reply):
For the moment, this cardset follows two templating/rules changes that have been discussed by WotC members but not currently implemented: 1) Removing rule 306.7 ("If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead.") and any direct damage will only be able to damage planeswalkers by targeting PWs or directly listing damage to them. We think that both changes are an overall cleanup and fairly likely to eventually occur in the real game. Cards will be playtested under those rules and development will be done with these changes in mind, though we expect it will meaningfully impact very few cards, if any. This may be revisited later on, especially if further information about the plausibility of these changes comes out from WotC. |
Recently active cards: (all recent activity)
Creatures can’t attack you or a planeswalker you control unless their controller pays
for each of those creatures.
I guess. It was played against me this weekend in Sealed, but I was still able to win through it since I had enough reach
To be honest, dude, every time I've played Overcome it's been an auto-win. That extra +1/+1 isn't really necessary.
Also, Sleep is still in. And that card is just no fun. Argue for or against it as much as you want. Cards like Sleep make me wonder why I'm even bothering to make good plays.
Man, limited's gotten so nerfed. It blows
In fact, the modern effect is Overcome, so this basically offers you double the effect for 3 more mana. It’s intended to be a late-game finisher/ramp incentive, and I suspect playtesting will reveal it does that job adequately at 8.
—CF
Overrun notoriously does not appear in modern limited sets because it was an unfun I-win button at 5. Maybe this could be 7 without breaking the format, but I’m not sure people would actually enjoy that more.
—CF
Yeah; the price balance needs work.
Good solid card otherwise, though.
This seems pretty sad compared to Overrun. Three extra mana is brutal
We decided to try introducing a new game term rather than writing out the somewhat clunky "creature with no abilities" everywhere. Right now we're trying "simple creature," but still on the lookout for synonyms that are short, descriptive, and neutral feeling.
Creating an actual rules term for the property also lets us distinguish between "creatures that have no inherent abilities" and "creatures with no abilities at the moment."
We're starting playtesting using the former definition, so a Grizzly Bears with Flight would still be a simple creature, but a Morphling targeted by Ovinize would not be.
(More formally, there would be a new rule (probably in the 700s) that said "A permanent is simple if and only if it has no abilities after all effects from layer 1 have been applied.")
That's making the somewhat unwarranted assumption that the goblins will survive the first attack. Since you need this to give them revel, the opponent can see it coming...
And, um, you just turned five mana into 6. That's not exactly beyond the bounds of power constraints.
I get where you're going though - that this is repeatedly potentially quite a lot of mana is the dream. But only if you can attack without your creatures dying - and if you can reliably do that, well, you put the opponent on a pretty short clock already.
I just fear that the wisest use of this is "Attack 1, main 2, untap, end turn".
If it takes no mana, you only need three goblins to play this and then follow up with a Wurmcoil Engine on the same turn. Then next turn you can cast an OG ulamog with mana to spare. We’re looking to be more exciting than Aggravated Assault, but not really pushed for constructed.
—CF