UnReserved: Recent Activity
| UnReserved: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to UnReserved: (Generated at 2025-09-01 12:40:33)
| UnReserved: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to UnReserved: (Generated at 2025-09-01 12:40:33)
Well when its a silver border set that'll never see print and is designed by one guy, yeah.
Having a pun is all you need for silver border these days.
Well, it fights a specific subset of graveyard hate and is entirely ineffective against another large subset of graveyard hate.
I also don't get the "perfect for silver border" part. What's the criteria you are using for that. Marginally effective hate cards that use outdated wording to achieve an effect that otherwise lies entirely within the things you could do in a Standard-playable set?
Finally, some anti-blink hate.
Now, I don't know specifically, but there should be a couple of cards this breaks but it mostly fights graveyard hate in a convoluted way. Perfect for silver border.
I don't see how that's secret tech. If you (while describing) say, "it's not X,Y,Z, etc etc" then that's pretty accurately describing the card.
Secret Tech against Izaac's ruling: Name every card in your deck that is not the card you want.
Nice. They go get a thing, only you don't really have control over the thing they get, except by exclusion :)
Official Ruling: (If you accidentally use a word printed on a card, that card cannot be chosen by the person you chose)
Ok, I think I got everything. If I was wizards, I'd probably just print x*x in the mana cost to save text space. It is an unset afterall.
Now that is fun!
This calls for a playtest.
The last ability still doesn't do anything, because once this is on the battlefield, X is defined as 0 again. It needs to say "draw cards equal to the number of counters on it"
PSA: 33 = 27
The X in the activated ability is no defined anywhere, so it is whatever value you choose for X independent of e. g. the number of charge counters, right? And the number of charge counters is independent of the number of times this was kicked.
You could just choose 6 for X and not pay the multikicker cost even once and still draw plenty of cards because none of the pieces actually connect.
Also using X multiple times on a card to refer to different values is a terrible practice and technically just a rules nightmare if you actually try to parse it through the rules. (Since WotC simply doesn't print cards like that they never bothered to build a priority system in the rules that solves any contradictions your wording might produce.)
At the very least this needs to correct itself to the last two lines of jmgariepy's suggestion above to work at all in a meaningful way. I actually like the overall design there quite a lot.
Think you want:
Multikicker
, where X is the number of times you kick CARDNAME.
Thromok the Insatiable
Yeah; I don't think this works the way you think it does - X isn't automatically the number of times you kicked it. I think I could set X to be 40; choose not to kick it at all - and draw 40. I can certainly set it to 4 and then kick it once.
(@link the math intent is "X=2, so kick twicve, total 4, +3 = 7" But that's just not how it works)
Izaac, I don't understand your math. Currently this would enter with 4 charge counters if you spent 7 mana.
As an aside, I totally didn't get the Multikicker
, and I assume I would've missed 
as well. My mind just translated that to Multikicker 
. Had I thought about it, I would have realized that was much too cheap, and would have to rethink the card... but I don't know if I would have come up with "Pay X X number of times." I presume a new player would be lost... but maybe the stumbling block is just in my head.
An alternative way to cost this:
Howling Bell
, Kicker 
, Kicker 
: Draw cards equal to the number of charge counters on ~.
Artifact
Kicker
~ enters the battlefield with a counter on it for each time you kicked it.