Misc Cards: Recent Activity
| Misc Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Misc Cards: (Generated at 2024-05-05 13:43:03)
| Misc Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Misc Cards: (Generated at 2024-05-05 13:43:03)
Looking at this now, after seeing more commune cards... I'm trying to figure out if white blue is the best colors for it.
communing is five-color more or less, I see green, white, blue do it a lot, black occasionally and red doesn't do it often..
White gets it with limitations (low cmc creatures?), green does it for creatures (less limited than white) and blue could probably do it with anything if we were in 1996 and this ability was used rather than tutors (blue had a big slice o pie then ive heard)
Maybe this should be monoblue... Flavorwise and typewise your choice was spot on... But the exact ability (minus the flash) feels monoblue (if you had to pick one color)
Overall this is a way better card in white/blue hybrid and I'm not suggesting changing it.
Yeah that's not only land destruction, but also repeatable. I suppose if you land-wipe them you start hitting yourself (gl getting rid of this in monored, red doesn't get enchant removal.. i think there was one card which sacrificed enchants? recently?)
if you play this in jund deck then it's gonna be pretty nasty.
If I (re?)made this card I would write it as:
"At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player sacrifices a land" I could see that having black in it, but really dunno, not sure how wizard's is using sacrificial removal now.
It could also be "At the beginning of your upkeep, each player sacrifices a land"
The point is destruction is pretty rough, sacrifice makes it more symmetrical and less one-sided.. Otherwise you just have to stall.. Which doesn't make sense in red..
It's a cool card and the fairy tale text is definitely miserable.. I dont really suggest anything I just like to write down my thoughts sometimes.
I love this card, what is unfortunate is that regenerating removes the counters from a permanent (if im wrong correct me and ill celebrate this card) so the two abilities aren't perfectly synergistic.
Also how big should trolls get? It's not a big deal if it's gradual, but on turn 7 it's a bit weird to just START pumping
Also this dude is a 5/5 that's kind of a big troll.
I suggest lowering it to 3gg and make it a 4/4.
Wow. That's a nasty little clock to put opponents on.
he pumps the team like a lord should
I think I will change this guy. Trolls already regenerate on their own.
I think it would work (check oracle wording for Matopi Golem).
It doesn't feel much of a buff for this to regenerate trolls as pretty much all of them already have some regenerate ability. Eh, it's prolly a discount for a vast majority of them at least...
Btw, regenerate has been retired for now and has been replaced with stuff like "gains indestructible UEOT" (Drudge Sentinel).
Very cool, but i don't know if it would work rules-wise... i love it tho.
Edit: maybe that ability should cost
, it should probably say another... but not necessarily.
Edit: Troll is a subtype, needs to be capitalized.
i guess it's cool, but not the best troll i've seen, definitely a lame one at rare...
also u forgot the typeline
BIG OOPS
I should have put 'but keeps this ability' on that
The effect is meant to be repeatable.
I agree with Vitenka, cheating things into play is part of the fun. Edit incoming...
I cannot see a reason to even have an anti-reanimation (or w/e) clause on an expensive delayable version of Clever Impersonator either.
Just for the combo with a certain land that Vampire Hexmage does cheaper?
I thought this could (at instant speed for free) become any permanent, with an unlimited number of uses. I thought that's how this was currently written.
just realized it doesn't say "but has this ability" so its 7 mana to copy a permanent...
Yeah i thought this was a lot more pwrful, ill have to ask wurms if he meant it to be a 1 shot. I think the clause is unnecessary if it is.
I only argued it because I thought it was reusable, i guess not. So cheating it would be fine if you can, I suppose.
Sure - but cheating things into play is a thing you want to sometimes do. Cheating "Win the game" into play is not a thing you want to allow. Cheating something interesting and potentially swingy; but not completely imposisbly dominating? Sure, why not.
Uh... that's assuming this is meant to be just a one-shot Clone, Copy Artifact? Though honestly, if someone wants to get a Vesuvan Doppleganger in play, I don't really have an issue with that either.
That's just a templating concern. "If ~ would etb, etc"
The ability to keep it from the battlefield also doesn't really work. You cannot replace an event that has already happened and triggered abilities only go on the stack after the event that triggers them actually occurs.
You think that this isn't worth putting the clause on? I'm interested to hear why...
I think this card has a pretty powerful ability on it...
Cheating it in is not that hard to do either... just use any one of the many cards or strategies.
Honestly; if you can cheat this into play - good for you?
nice catch
That's cool idea, but this can be cheated OTB...
you should add a clause "When ~ etbs if it wasn't cast from your hand, sacrifice it."
thanks for commenting!
That's actually interesting, it's communing... with nothing.
I like the flavor too... it's like scrying... but the only card advantage is getting to read into yer next cards..
I'd say too powerful but if you can actually DO something like this by milling at 1 mana (which ive heard has been done in sets like innistrad) then i guess its fine...
This synergizes with my cool card Druid's Familiar
anyway thanks for stopping by!