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 01:09:19)
| Llanowar Burned: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Llanowar Burned: (Generated at 2025-05-01 01:09:19)
Tapping Auras don't play well.
Fortification but with all the drawback of Auras? Fortify actually sounds thematically sound for especially a "moving" city.
Thematically I assume these are supposed to be evacuated and resettled.
Remember to keep an eye on the color pie! "Sacrifice a Mountain" instead?
(art)
Vitenka, I can't find the comment about it being Chinese, I guess I'm blind. I'll be the first to admit I often can't tell the difference between Asian languages and just assumed it was Japanese, which was a mistake.
Link, On '1)'; I'm pretty sure Soul Land is a translation, in which case it could be either Chinese or Japanese, considering neither language is that similar to English where "Soul Land" would directly mean something in that language without being translated first. But yeah, now I know it's Chinese, because I was told by Vitenka (and apparently sometime earlier)
By the way, I wasn't serious about anime not being cartoons either, they are. I don't know exactly what the joke was there, but I thought it was funny at the time.
On '2)'; Also, I never meant to sound like I said Anime /manga isn't art, it think they definitley are! I don't personally like most of them, but they are definitely artistic.
The thing I said wasn't art was Furry Fart Erotica, which was the most silly thing I could think of at the time. I still don't really believe is art. It wasn't a good parallel to anime not being cartoons (which was a joking statement) so it might have been confused as me calling anime not art.
I guess technically that very weird stuff is art... but I don't know why anyone would stick up for it when it's called not art, unless to be pedantic ¯_(ツ)_/¯
That's a fair concern - upcosting from 2 to 4.
This would be killer in dredge/mill, though. Land destruction would hardly enable this at all compared to those.
Also, @Froggy, 1) that's clearly not a Japanese name, and 2) all art is art, regardless of your disdain for it.
I guess it is very aggressively costed. Hard to work out how much an effect like this should cost though. Probably more than 2, I guess, since you're not likely to run it unless you know there's land destruction going on.
I also point out it's Chinese; not Japanese. So, uh, that might not go down well :)
By that logic, Furry Fart Erotica is also 'Art'
I'm calling the Japanese PM
For that effect, I would expect this to cost a lot more.
Also, they ARE cartoons, eh?
how dare you call a manga/anime a comic/cartoon :O
(lol)
(art. TIL there's a comic/cartoon by the name 'soul land')
(art; via anthrax the band)
(only possible art for the name)
(art) This is just a messy enchantment though.
(art)
Side note: You can't pay you don't have. So if you're at 0 or less life with something like Lich, you can't use the second ability here. Similarly, if you have Platinum Emperion out, you can't use the second ability. These are in direct contrast to the current functionality of Llanowar Wastes where you are able to activate the second ability in both of those aforementioned cases.
(art) why do I have this urge to put a couple of gold cards into every set?
Ez bm no gg concede
Yes, but you die before it resolves
I'm just wondering, can you pay a life cost if it would kill you?
Well; yes. It's a functional change to be the correct way round. It's a cost, not a side-effect.
Thematically, this card does certainly need to be in the set. But the cycle probably doens't, the mechanic isn't particularly relevant, and it's weird only having just one uncommon land in set.
So all in all, I should probably drop this, and remake Sylvan Catacombs to be "llanowar-something"
How odd; given that it's "~ deals 3 damage to target". But sure, removing words is usually good. Also; this card probably shouldn't even be in this set, because there's no instant-speed protection going on to worry about, it's not perticularly in-theme or anything.
The change from dealing damage to life payment change is not trivial. Also, it's just kinda nonsensical. One is a cost and another is an effect.
If you were to reprint Char, would you change it to
> As an additional cost to cast this spell, pay 2 life.
> Char deals 4 damage to any target.
?
I would expect consistency at least on this front. Which to me, seems like it would lead to a bad precedent and be generally messy.
That wording is wacky. It makes it sound like the card chooses which one to destroy ala Floral Spuzzem. In the same vein, usually it's players that do the "destroying" of permanents - not the cards themselves. Ie. Murder is "Destroy target creature" not "Murder destroys target creature."
yeah; make sac-land an alt-cost to play into the theme.
(art) I reiterate mephspittle though. This is just dull The set does want a common twiddle-like; but maybe it can be something to work in with the set theme. Reduce-cost if you sac a land; maybe?
"What's is a Nissa?" Primarily. Oh, some kind of a planeswalker. Meh. Forget.
wait srsly, it was clearly nissa like howd u miss it lol