Llanowar Burned: Recent Activity
| Llanowar Burned: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Llanowar Burned: (Generated at 2025-05-01 01:09:20)
| Llanowar Burned: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Llanowar Burned: (Generated at 2025-05-01 01:09:20)
(art) Nothing really needs changing here, every set needs a mana elf or two. Though it being non-optionally red while active is perhaps a bit of a play-problem to keep an eye on
(art) "Elf caravan Guard" ... hexproof only during attack kind of doens't work, I fear? Switch it out to be "During your turn"
(art) Don't see any need to change this import
(art) ... this is kinda bad colour fixing. But the set doesn't really care all that much. So maybe ok?
(art) ... is this a sensible form for a mass-kill spell?
Ok, change to sacrifice
Yeah, go on - change to just sacrifice one land, instead of destroying all of them
Well true. But it's a bit of a risk since they could well do the same to you. Which; well - this is the red mythic. Big and splashy and with potentialto backfire. I'm thinking this is the personificaiton of the dwarves burning of llanowar; they got too greedy.
Still. Maybe this is too over the top. Destroy a single land for each creature would still be pretty mighty, while also being somewhat recoverable.
I think it's deliberately ambiguous.
An elf, lost forever in dream. Is dream real?
The reason for that, though, is that there is more benefit available to you for having lands in graveyards.
Still. You do have a point that these are more vulnerable than I'd originally intended. I'd mainly been thinking that these would take the land with them; but the other way round is now more likely. Hmm.
Maybe moon-logic it? Swap this to be that the land is protected until the city is destroyed (but is exploded as soon as the city is)?
> And this set, specifically, wants you do burn lands. So what is normally a downside, isn't quite, in this case.
Quite the opposite. Losing your Aelfhame to land destruction seems more of a drawback in this set than usual since you seem to have an insane density of LD from what I have glanced over the past weeks.
See Appropriate Cost for wording notes.
I don't know what you mean with "you still need a way to win". You have a 5/5 flier. That's a path to victory right there once you use the forced attack trick to make certain the opponent has no removal.
So is this an Illusion that is an Elf or is this an Elf's Illusion, because the flavor text implies the second.
Banshee traditionally translates to Spirit.
(art) Having an elf bane-sidhe is kinda odd in retrospect. Ah well.
(art)
(art) ... the art is red. Doh.
(art ish)
(art) ... this card is completely ridiculous. Maybe that's ok.
(art) This is probably a bit too good as an uncommon. Upcost the boost cost from 2 to 4. Now it matches the casting cost.
"opponent sacrifices a land" is also preferable to "destroy target land" because it doesn't punish a color skewed start. Targeted LD makes multicolor play much weaker.
If you're going to have an LD theme, and you want to keep things fun, then I recommend using some of those LD slots for creatures that give the option to the opponent of whether or not they sacrifice a land. Something like this:
3RR
Creature - Ogre
When ~ enters the battlefield, target opponent may sacrifice a land. If they do not, put three +1/+1 counters on ~.
3/3
That makes it so players are being pinched by an LD theme, but they can still play the game. Nothing is so frustrating as being forced to play a game with only three lands ever.
Well yes. It's going to be a balancing act.
Note that much of it will be land-sacrifice; not outright destory opponents land.
Jesus, that's so much LD
(art) So black now has common land destruction cards. Red has one. How many do I need for a decent number in a draft? There are 35 commons, want about one in 6 to be LD; so that's six needed in total.
From a comment on Vodalia and my desperate need for more land destruciton in set.
(art)
Hmmm; ok. I'm not averse to changing this to
instead. In non-abusive use it'll be largely equivalent anyway.
Except Ruby Medallion doesn't reduce the cost of Shock to
which makes it much easier to safely attack with this on turn two (burning away any attacker) and then just play some cantrips with mana cost 
to cycle through your deck.
That's why Runic Iguanar was actually much closer to the mark.
That's also the difference between affinity on Frogmite and affinity on Somber Hoverguard. If it results in free spells its always more concerning.
You do have to get it tapped; which then means it's a 2 card combo to reduce costs by 1. Or you can attack with it; which is the intended use - which is why it only has 1 toughness.
It is indeed a very potent upside; but it's not a unique effect. There's a whole cycle of Ruby Medallion already - this is pretty much that effect with a downside.