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 2025-09-07 08:09:47)
Is this an elaborate joke? How many times are people going get to do something meaningful with a Disallow that's cast when the creature deals combat damage to the opponent? Most likely you would be able to counter your own combat damage triggers, such as cipher, but that's pointless outside of some super niche where a creature has a negative trigger out of combat damage.
I would btw include the reminder text for the cipher in these.
See Whispers of Jukai.
No, cipher only skips the mana cost. You still have to sac a land when you cast this on subsequent turns. I can turn it into part of the effect rather than an additional cost to reduce confusion
I was going to say it seems overcosted. Then I noticed 'cipher' and it's potentially a rotation every turn? That's aspirational, to put it mildly.
But sure, 4 mana, maybe that's ok?
Actually; humm - does cipher replace the WHOLE cost, so the extra cost won't apply? That's unclear to me. If it does (and then you're rotating a land, and also gaining a land every combat), then this probably wants to cost a bit more.
See Snowball Fight. Crop Rotation is busted, but as a four mana sorcery it should be fine, right?
See Create a Backdoor. Of course the red one deals damage. Remember that ice magic on Kamigawa is red
swapped counter and ueot effect
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 I suppose?
I liked cipher. Shame they ran out of design space in UB in Gatecrash and soured on the mechanic
This particular card is supposed to associated with the Saiba Futurists and represent digital ciphers
If you replace a draw with something that doesn't draw a card, e.g. Words of Wilding, then there's no card to reveal and you don't lose life
This template leans a bit on snappy wording that works intuitively in most cases. The comp rules entry should define this a bit more strictly, perhaps as "When an effect instructs you to 'draw a card and reveal it,' you reveal the card drawn with that effect." In this case, if you replace the draw with something that puts a card in your hand but isn't a draw, then you don't reveal it and you don't lose life
Ignoring the first ability, you would simply draw two cards, reveal both, and lose life for each mana value revealed. Combined with the first replacement effect, you do the "look at top two cards, put one in your hand, and lose life equal to its mana value" effect twice
In an ideal world, that kind of template would also get errata to be worded like this one and use the word "draw." If that exact ability is in play, then you would choose the order to apply the replacement effects. If the last one applied still has you drawing a card, then you reveal it and lose life (as in A)
Erm, I suppose using "draw" in that manner would work. Hs uses the word for a lot of thing from what I recall.
The thing with the replacement effect chaining into the reveal is that it sorta works logically for this particular interaction, but A) what if the replacement effect replaced the draw with an effect that would omit the card draw wholly? Prolly you wouldn't lose any life.
B) How about if the replacement effect was "If you would draw a card, return a card from your graveyard to your hand instead"? Would you lose life equal to that card's mana value or not? If you don't lose life, then what's the exact differentiator between replacement effects where that draw still counts as a draw? Is it any effect that still results in a draw?
C) What if the replacement effect is "If you would draw a card, draw two cards instead"? D) What if the replacement effect states "If you would draw a card, instead look at the top four cards of your library, then draw two of them at random"? Would you lose any life and how much?
It's intentional that they interact. I'm trying to demonstrate how my new template of using the word "draw" for impulse effects can be used. In this case, you look at the top two cards of your library; mill one of them; reveal the other; lose life equal to its mana value; and put it into your hand
Umm, the first effect replaces the second's draw - how do the two effects interact exactly?
This wouldn't be a problem at all if you had the second effect work like with Dark Confidant, where the card is actually just put into your hand - so it wouldn't trigger the replacement effect. What's your intent here - is the second ability specifically meant to interact with the replacement effect and if so, then how? I kinda assume this is just a wording mishap since you also use the word "draw" strangely to referring to recurring the card in the replacement effect.
See Optimistic Rummager.
See Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow.
See Selvala, Explorer Returned and Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow. Concept for a new wording for effects that reveal the top card of your library and put it in your hand, so that it saves space and interacts with card draw effects like you'd expect. Also I fixed the commander ninjutsu ability while I was here
See Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow and Selvala, Explorer Returned. Concept for a new wording for effects that reveal the top card of your library and put it in your hand, so that it saves space and interacts with card draw effects like you'd expect. Also fixed the mana ability
second ability impulses instead of going til you hit one
I want it synergize with the first ability, but I knew that was a risk. Ooh, maybe I can make it -X and impulse X
Gosh, so for 4 mana and not being allowed to run useful artifacts; you get yourself something like a 12/12 ?
Ugh; some of the options at 12 are just silly. Blightsteel Colossus only it gets an extra +1.