Infinite Potential Well: Recent Activity
| Infinite Potential Well: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Planets and Gravity | Merge Gates | Madness | Venture into the House |
Recent updates to Infinite Potential Well: (Generated at 2025-07-16 06:36:00)
Right, the targeting ensures everyone has a creature when you cast this. I guess there could be a way to template it such that if someone doesn't have a creature, they just get excluded from the swap, but that's less fun. If we want to talk about "choosing targets," I'll just point at The Abyss.
> So, no downside if you control one or zero creatures when you cast this spell. Intentional?
I don't know. "Each player chooses target nontoken creature they control." The "target" here means each player must be able to make a legal choice at the time of casting.
Obviously you can sacrifice a targeted creature with this on the stack, which will leave someone empty-handed.
I'm not certain, but usually the caster makes alll target choices and choices made by "each player" are not targeted to begin with, so the confusion is understandable.
Yeah, Thieves' Auction is the version of this that flickers. I wanted to avoid that, though it's making the template harder
I see where the confusion lies. You're making a subset of creatures to choose from. I didn't presume that going in. Let me show you how this played out in my mind:
Let's presume that I have a Pearled Unicorn, and you have a Grey Ogre and a Mons' Goblin Raiders.
I cast Prisoner exchange.
Then each player chooses target nontoken creature they control.
I choose my target Unicorn. You choose your target Ogre.
Then, starting with me, I choose one of the creatures I don't control that hasn't been chosen yet.
The only creature that hasn't been chosen yet is the Mons. I take Mons.
Then my opponent takes a creature that hasn't been chosen yet. All creatures have been chosen. My opponent gets nothing.
Technically, there's a clue here in that you used the word 'those' when referring to 'those creatures'. But it's a pretty weak clue for establishing that a subset of creatures are being locked in.
I think the easy solution to this is exiling all the chosen creatures... which is what Wizards tends to do with spells like this if I remember correctly. It involves flickering everything, which is an unfortunate aside, but it cuts right through the confusion. And at least white is the best color at flickering anyways.
Oh, and also excuse my "gain control of a creature then opponent gains control of it right back" comment from above. That was just a moment of temporary insanity.
I'm not understanding jmgle's two-creature thing, either. Though the wording was confused.
Seems a lot better now. I don't like overloading the 'target' to enforce there having to be that many. How about just "If they do..." on getting to choose? Allows you to initiate a prisoner swap that you're not involved in - but then you don't get to benefit from it. Could be fun in multiplayer. "Yeah; you lot, go swap something."
What? That's not what it does at all. Each player picks one of their creatures, and then everyone essentially drafts from that set of creatures. It's not "exchange," because that requires a 1-for-1 swap. Everyone gets a creature back, but it's never the creature you put in. There's no "second creature" at all
Now it just enforces that you have a first creature to target. It doesn't currently enforce giving a creature up, if you don't have a second creature to give.
I think this might be easier if you use the word 'exchange' in the text of the card, since that enforces that the two creatures exist to make the exchange (while also making the targeting restriction unnecessary. Or perhaps makes it a spell that targets players.) The downside: Exchanging with one player means no multiplayer shenanigans. Or, perhaps a shell-game of multiplayer shenanigains where players can exchange control of creatures with creatures that have previously been exchanged. Which may not be so bad, actually, presuming you make the caster of the spell the last person to choose.
Oh, that points to another problem of the current wording. You can gain control of your opponent's creature, but they can just take the same creature right back.
No, you shouldn't be able to use it unless you actually have a creature to give up. If it requires targets, that should enforce that requirement
Oh yes. Casting this with double Bronze Bombshells is living the dream.
It's even funnier than that. Building to it means giving your opponents things they cannot afford to feed, that then eat their face :)
So, no downside if you control one or zero creatures when you cast this spell. Intentional?
(Whether or not it is, I do find it odd that the spell named 'Prisoner Exchange' is unlikely to result in an 'exchange' the majority of times that players play this spell [presuming most people build into avoiding the drawback.])
Looks like this one doesn't work either
art
See Restless Wraith.
Yeah. I wanted to just make an Animate Dead bestow card, but realized that the targeting requirements didn't work. This is just a one-off
Desecrate doesn't seem like an ability you would want to keyword. It's always going to be so expensive being both bestow and Zombify at once.
The design space seems even more narrow than the "ten keywords in one block don't need much design space"-abilities from RTR-block had, too.
You can put it on any number of creature sizes/Aura effects, but the reanimation effect will be dominating the way this is used.
See Animating Slime. No idea the numbers on this one
Card contest: use bestow
Quite frankly, I wanted to make a card called Confishcate, without regards to other design rules. It's not a very printable card, but that's not the point
Vitenka: Given Switcheroo and In Bolas's Clutches, I think 5 mana is already pushing the power level
> I figured the issue with landwalk was the variance, but since you're a blue deck that donates it, that issue goes away. Now it's on you to build around it.
But its still an additional keyword mechanic to carry around with you. Depending on the context it might be alright e. g. a Commander card like Teferi's Protection could have a standalone keyword that appears on just this card in a set without being evergreen.
Unless otherwise stated (or implied by specific mechanics e. g. mentioning the planar die) I'm going to assume a context of "Standard release" and there reintroducing islandwalk would be the wrong move either way.
No matter the context though, you still have the option of straight "This creature can't be blocked." How is the build-around value there? Is it your intent to to reward splashing off of artifacts and nonbasic lands? If so, why? Even in the "okay" context of Commander 20XX that's just "acceptable/unnecessary", not "preferable/Impressive".
Love the development name. Truly great.
Power-wise islandwalk is fine; it's just... normally a kinda annoying slightly-fiddly variant on "unblockable". Here, it's actually kinda interesting. Can I play
without playing islands? Or do I just hold on to some unsummon? Or just say "Ah whatever" and only use it on things worse than 2 damage a turn and hope they don't run much equipment?
Could this be downcost to
? It hits any permanent, but the downside is potentially quite large.
I figured the issue with landwalk was the variance, but since you're a blue deck that donates it, that issue goes away. Now it's on you to build around it
This is a card that cares about what your opponent plays. Eww.
I'd suggest to just have an enchantment with
> Monocolored creatures you control get +1/+1 and vigilance.
and converted mana cost 2 in this spot, same name.
Better than Sign in Blood as a plankton card in multiplayer? Certainly a nice flavor - the flavor text itself though is generic and uninteresting.
I don't like to think about Feaster of Lies.
I prefer the colorful Fish token to the islanwalk Fish token. I hated islandwalk before R&D made it popular to hate islandawalk though. When in doubt just not put islandwalk on the token?
Inevitable flavor text suggestion: "Sorry I annexed your village. Here's some fish."