Community Mashup Set: Recent Activity
| Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Community Mashup Set: (Generated at 2025-07-04 17:48:44)
| Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Community Mashup Set: (Generated at 2025-07-04 17:48:44)
I'm not buying those scenarios, but whatever.
I think a simple and interesting fix would be to increase the number of counters and make it a non-flash enchantment. That would increase the reward and drawback as well. Say if it was five, it's quite unlikely you would be able to spend all of those counters by having five creatures ETB under your control. That would mean that the opponent would get their turn to fetch those counters. However, if you were able to pull such a feat off, the card would reward your for it.
> Enchantment
> ~ ETBs with five +1/+1 counters on it.
> Whenever another creature ETBs under any player's control, if ~ has a +1/+1 counter on it, move a +1/+1 counter from it onto that creature.
> When ~ has no +1/+1 counters on it, sacrifice it.
Afiya Grove looks like a quite similar concept btw.
Ok; so the ramblings were stream of consciousness and show prety much exactly why I designed the card this way. The restriction is so that you don't just "Oh, I cast this then cast three creatures" but rather "I have to risk my opponent getting a shot at it". In turn, that's there because otherwise it's not a one-mana spell - which was one of the first constraints I got from the source cards.
Yes; it has memory issues. The actual template was, for a while an enchantment with: ~ ETBs with 3 +1/+1 counters on it. When a creature ETBs under any player's control, move a counter from ~ to that creature. If that was the last counter, sacrifice ~.
This is identical in function and way too wordy. So I went with the excuse "I already said I was designing an old-school card" (again, from the source cards) and gave useful but imprecise wording. The actual physrep would indeed be that you stick three counters on this.
Why would you cast this? Because you're running Hypnotic Spectre and your opponent's hand is empty, and think it's worth the risk they won't draw anything? You're running Meekstone and want opponent to have bigger creaturs than usual? you know you've curved into a 2-drop and a 3-drop hey, maybe the opponent will miss one? And yes; as you say "This, then summon 5 soldiers" is a deck you could try and build.
It aint power-nine, but it's usually going to get you some +1/+1 counters for
. It's usable.
Maybe shouldn't be rare though.
... What? Your ramblings are somewhat hard to follow tbh.
Why is the upkeep restriction here?
If this isn't limited to a single turn (ie. the next 3 creatures would get those counters even if this was cast 9 turns ago and no creatures were cast during those turns), then you are asking for memory issues and in that case I would rather have this as an enchantment.
Power wise this sucks hard. Why would you want to cast this? For example, having some instant spell that generates three tokens seems way too narrow of a scenario. The payoff isn't worth it. I would assume there are better cards that put counters on creatures - regardless of their controller.
Winds of Change + Incubate
Everyone rummages their whole hands. Why hasn't this seen a reprint recently? Just too cheap? And a variation on Cocoon.
So and old school card, one mana. I'd say Polymorph/Chaos Warp is a good fit for the mechanics mash; but that's not one mana. And, you know, is already published. At least twice.
Put +1 counters on cards in your hand? That doens't make sense?
Oh - actually; I can see a way to do it. How MANY counters should this distribute? Unstable Mutation suggests 3 is about right.
And... ugh; I want this to be more random and allow opponents to take advantage of it sometimes. Maybe it only gets the counters in your end step? Yeah; that works. (Was on ETB)
And now the wording is too much. Ok; falling back on "Old style card" and using old style wording. This used to be an enchantment that gains counters, then move them. Now it just sets up a reality.
I still want opponents to get the first bits of the cherry though - so meh; adding an extra clause. (And yes, change type AGAIN, was sorcery, breifly)
Remove "under anyone's control" 'reminder text' because now it's during an oponents turn makes it obvious anyway - and it fits!
Name... meh.
Could this hit only your creatures? Sure, it's well in-pie for green (though more primarily white) - but would need to cost a bit more.
Italics, flavourtext
Spiritual Focus + Application Error. Huh, try again. Ironman
Do not force me to discard, and equipment grants flying and fling.
Do not force me to fly? What would a card "Don't fly me, bro" even do? I guess there's gravity bond, and the enchant world? But those make other things fly.
A creature, that when equipped, prevents discard? Feels kinda meh. A creature that when you discard, gains stuff? Now we're cooking.
I replaced the equipment fling ability with 'fight' since it seems more natural. And I accidentally put it in between the flight and the UEOT. And the resulting construciton amuses me. So don't complain about that, I know "Fight ueot" is meaningless; it's a typo but it's funny.
I think this deserves keywording. It's kinda 'madness', but it's an activation on a permanent instead of from hand. So sure, envision a set where discarding is a thing you often do to yourself; and the opponent fears doing to you, and that isn't a terrible set so that "Discard all cards for no advantage so I'm hellbent now" doesn't become a thing again.
Size-wise, this probably wants to be middling; enough that there's stuff for it to fight, and be a bit annoying while evasive - but not big enough to be dominating without a bit more work.
Can't be common, doens't need to be rare. Like almost every other card, it's an uncommon. Creaturewise - I want something that slips out into the air and divebombs people. From your MIND. That would, be, uh... Oh heck with it, it's an insane imaginary thing. Snorkack. It's the pottery beeble.
Is it blue? Is it green? Green. Costing about 4 for a 3/3 I think? Yeah, below the curve unless you can discard - but repeatable fight if you can? Potentially above the curve.
yes i read that just after commenting, my bad. This does involve damage and cards, so i suppose it counts, but milling still seems different from pumps and discard (specifically. triggered card draw from life loss)
I really love the card though, the second ability is like an evermore punishing ingest, which is a deck my brother (you know him as wurms) actually has and it's already a pain to play against (i have crap paper, dont have mtgo, but i do know how to make good decks online). The first one is like a reverse-bodyguard.
All-in-all it's super cool, even if i dont understand what parts you used for the whole :)
Nicol Bolas doesn't exist nope nope.
It isn't intended to work WITH the source cards; the mashup is basically "Take these two cards, be inspired by trying to combine (bits of) them into a single card" - in fact, the front page sums it up pretty well:
"The way a mash-up works is: you select two cards and try to create one card that contains elements of both of them, combined into a reasonably elegant whole."
neat design. I like it by itself, although I don't see how it works with either of the original cards? Or maybe i don't know how this mashup thing works yet.
And i don't know what you mean, I don't remember a bolas in legends?
heh heh scritchies i wanna wun
neat design too, i agree with your decisions
i love this
Yeah; not sure at what point the casting cost becomes "Don't ever flat-cast this", the cost then being "Becomes cursed several times" which is much more reasonable.
That seems like much better card draw than black normally gets. Isn't the usual going rate one life per card or so? I don't think a single zombie is comparable
Tombstalker + Opening the Eye
5/5 flier for
+delve, plus draw a couple of cards for 
+loyalty.
Casting-cost reduction is clearly the common element here. Not much to go on for the rest of the card though - except the name. Wow, that's very evocative.
Good for a saga. But saga-tech sucks almost as hard as DFC, so no.
Oh! I've got a lovely thing it could depend on - you open a tomb, you get cursed. So the more cursed you are, the easier it is to open, right? And we'll give the opponent a mummy to chase you with.
The upside is drawing cards (as per eye opening) and we're pretty much done. Cost and number of cards almost certainly need tuning, but we'll start big. Being cursed is usualyl a pretty big downside. (Obviously this card would be a sideboard card for an environment with a lot of curses; just in case they got out of hand)
Which is an argument both for and against super types for frenchness. Obviously, the type line is often skipped as unimportant, so putting useful stuff there is a bad idea. But equally, an unimportant card element? Waste! How can we make it useful? Well, we can put france in it...
I don't read supertypes. Skip from the name to the rules box, since that's where the important things go
It has flying. Supertype.
Copy the counters? So you need to generate the counters in the first place? Oh, so it's a targeted proliferate. It's strange to have an angel without flying, especially since the source material had it
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice + Sandworn Sword
Kitchen sink mythic, mainly a proliferation stick. But that's a lot of goodness in combat, too.
And... sort of equipment? Grants lifelink, and one-shot fight.
Well, both have lifelink. So we're having that. And I guess it's a creature.
Tap to grant lifelink? Lifelink when proliferate? Proliferate when you gain life?
Mehhhhhhh.
Root Maze + Skillful Locksmith
Huh. Kismet got a green version. And a 2/1 that grant unblockableness a single time.
So global unblockableness? A one-shot kismet maybe? Yeah, lets go with that.
Reference the card art for flavour, and we're done. Oh wait; rarity.
Sure as heck aint common. It's potential for horrible abuse only really comes about if you can continually bounce it. I guess I could have the ability on a mythic of some kind; but it doesn't feel like it's mythic or even rare on its own. Try it as an uncommon. It fits pretty well as a "Build yourself a white stall deck" build hint.
That rule is a rule; but it appears to have no actual reason. And indeed you can just add a 'tribal' supertype and that magically lifts the rule. So I am willfully ignoring it.
Not a creature, so it can't have a creature type
Tyrant's Machine + Industriousness
A tap-down artifact, and make things into riggers (tap to make contraptions) that can then be swapped out for a different aura.
So "Tap target contraption"? Doens't really work. Or works but isn't useful.
A tap-creature contraption? Pretty sure that exists, but gatherer search is crapping out on me.
An artifact that can replace itself with another one? That's kinda funky. Why not.
Tuknir Deathlock + Gatekeeper of Albahris
Wow. One of the original legends legends. How utterly memorable they weren't. (With the exception of, like, Chromium who got a format all to himself, there's no such thing as a Bolas, la la la la la, I'm in my happy place, sad dragons in snow. Hey! He got a new version! Happy!) Anyway, an overpriced bear that can piggy back onto people.
And an 8 mana 8/8 trampler with a downside. We really are going for a prehistoric feeling here.
So the commonality is a rare creature. (Possibly mythic nowadays)
I am kinda amused that 'deathlock' came up with a creature who turns lifeloss into cardloss. Huh, there's a thought - instead of buffing another creature, turn its damage into cardloss.
I'm assuming we've broken the 'mill' barrier somehow, because ugh, too wordy otherwise. Although this card is then a very very good example of why 'mill' is a terrible choice of word for the effect.