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 22:15:28)
| Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Community Mashup Set: (Generated at 2025-07-04 22:15:28)
Evolving Wilds + Construct Fate
Huh; another cardset I can't comment on. First comment - why isn't that just an artifact; why a spell to summon an artifact? I guess it might have been before coloured artifacts? And anyway, it's just a way to get a delayed-action boomerang which is not a wonderful ting to have lying around.
The official card is a land, that is ALSO sacrifice-for-effect; in this case, the effect being "Get a useful land". It's pure deck-size-reduction; and pretty useful as a colour fixer (even leaving aside the cheaty dual-lands that are also basic despite being, well, not).
So something that sacrifices itself for a 2-ish-cost effect. Wow, that's sure a narrow design space. However will we cope.
Ok; so something that sacrifices to boomerang a basic land. That... works but is annoying.
Maybe the names can inspire? They're almost opposites. Evolve/Construct Wild/Fate. Maybe this should be a split card?
Wild Evolution? Unstable Mutation variant? Fate construction? Some kind of combo-build engine?
That latter works, and fills in the for "sacrificial 2-cost". Something that on its own isn't any use; but can be used to fill out your combo. And I think the thing we'll sacrifice for, is regrowth.
This might actually be a good use for a planeswalker.
I bet we can come up with a deck including this and Contract from Below. :)
Still a fun combo card with Felidar Sovereign or Aetherflux Reservoir.
Yeah; or maybe it should be when this dies you get to to the sacrifice; as an additional hoop jump. But I kinda like it as a small thing. It's got quite enough upside already thankee very much :) And, well, tempting you to use it early on is a nice big fat risk.
Very much "How did I get here from there" now, even though, well, the above charts the journey.
As a quick check... dropping this on turn 2 means you got a lucky draw; and now have this and 2 land in play, and 1 card in hand. You're pretty much safe to spedn your next few turns 'draw go' and still be on reasonable life. You do have a bunch of (presumably decent) creatures in the graveyard to re-animate... But you'd better draw a board-sweeper of some kind pretty soon, because you've done nothing to oppose your opponents. This seems not completely ridiculous. Playing it after some kind of 'draw 7 cards' event also seems fine; there's much worse things you can turn that into.
Lol wut. Okay, this actually kind of works. I think it could even be a mythic with that number since Ajani, Mentor of Heroes comes to mind :D Maybe +
or 
to mana cost and a beefier body would be nice.
Oh, it's certainly niche. Making it a common would be making it a trick. Making it rare lets it be "this is a combo piece"; with occasional "Ooops, save me" use. I agree the lifegain upside isn't too great; but making it too big would be too much. Maybe it balances out at 5 or 6, dunno. I was tempted to make it 25 though - "You may discard 4 creature cards; if you do, gain 100 life" (again referencing hecatomb being, theoretically, a sacrifice of 100). Actually you know what; I will. It was X for 4X. It's now "Go big or go home".
> When ~ ETBs, discard any number of creature cards. You gain 4 life for each card discarded this way.
Peace of Mind and Tonic Peddler are distant relatives. Peace was made as a
madness enabler.
This card seems quite unplayable. It could be a common (it's low impact and relatively simple) and it seems like a card that tries to trick new players to discard their cards for little gain. Card disadvantage for life is hardly ever useful - the opposite is true: life loss for card advantage is great. I don't think even unearth or whatever in the same set as this card would help it that much.
Nulun's Falsifier + Hecatomb
Conditional ETB Life gain if you're aggressive, on a weenie; and an enchantment that basically has "
: Deal 1 damage to target" ... and that has you sacrifice 4 creatures when you cast it. The sacrifice is avoidable due to rules madness; and...
Ah. It's popular because for a while the rules were just outright broken and didn't acknowledge the "do X to Y" meant "If you do X, then Y, otherwise no, you don't get to deal infinite damage you muppet!"
You can get infinite activations for free, that do nothing. That miught be useful. But assuming that you fix the card or rules (or both) to be sane - then Hecatomb is really rather crappy.
So; ok. We've got a terrible pestilence, and some kind of truth-unsayer that gains life. What would a White hecatomb look like? What is the white kind of mass sacrifice?
I guess.. gaining life should be the upside; and... proper burial? Discarding from hand to put creatures in the graveyard seems sensible. And we get to keep the 4, too.
Hmm; probably wants to be a creature, not an enchantment; since it doesn't seem to do anything when hanging around. First name idea - "Hecation Monk". Of course, hecate being an actual goddess puts this a put more therosian. But no huge issue there; though we're nowhere near Theros' white god - but the white-black one fits nicely. Athreos preist it is.
You're... yeesh. Yes; the reminder text is WRONG. Ffs. It doesn't MATTER. It's edge case on throwaway reminder text! You know what; removing it. Was "~ cannot be damaged by non-flying creatures"
I think what Vitenka intended was "can't be attacked by", a la Form of the Dragon, and he just brainglitched that into "can't be damaged by". But, well, it's Vitenka, so who can tell? :)
I guess, I just don't see how it is "obvious" that a planeswalker with flying can be damaged by the activated ability of Fledgling Mawcor, but not by the activated ability of Prodigal Pyromancer - while both are equally able to ping an Aven Skirmisher.
It's like adding trample to a planeswalker with the reminder text "Prevent all noncombat damage this would be dealt." In someone's mind it might make perfect sense, but to me it's weird that the effect is not consistent across even permanent types.
Windreaver + Holy Crusade
Destroy all big creatures; and a really fiddly creature.
Solution? Destroy all fiddly creatures. Making it legendary because whle I hate the new tech, this does seem like the kind of place to show it off.
And we can give it a suitably ironic name.
I don't understand why quibbling over the reminder text. It has flying. The consequences of flying on a planeswalker are obvious "No, a non flying creature cannot reach it to hit it" but aren't spelled out in the rules, so I added some reminder text - precisely to try and forestall this kind of pointlessness.
> I think it has actual flying keyword; I just don't need to spell out all of the reminder text because, well, planeswalkers usually cannot attack.
But the current rules for flying do not fit the reminder text (Abbey Griffin can be damaged by creatures without flying), so my question asks what your intended interactions are with the new rules you make up for this pre-existing keyword.
> I'd expect "can't be attacked by creatures without flying."
Oooh. That would mean the rules for evasion keywords would match my rules for the assault action I'm experimenting with.
I mean, reach exists, so this has some weird other mechanic that happens to have the same name, like legendary sorceries. So not only is your flying mechanically disjoint from real flying, it's not even what I'd intuitively think a planeswalker with flying would do. I'd expect "can't be attacked by creatures without flying."
I think it has actual flying keyword; I just don't need to spell out all of the reminder text because, well, planeswalkers usually cannot attack.
Short rules question if I animate this, will it be immune to damage from Daybreak Ranger?
What if I animate a random Nicol Bolas, the Deceiver and give it flying as a creature? Is that an intended functional change?
Interestingly, Form of the Dinosaur was playing in similar space. (Form of the Dragon had the same front end as this but the backend was more similar to your other mashup the Nameless Vampire Lord.)
Yeah, Deceiver is the "bad" planeswalker from the planeswalker decks. It's intended for new players and deliberately low-power. The corresponding "good" one in the same set was Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh.
This looks like a nice design. The innovative bit is obviously flying, which is certainly flavourful, making the planeswalker much harder to attack. The problem with that is it's innovation in a way that reduces interaction. I worry that, when coupled with the +1 that eats creatures, that's going to make this really hard to deal with. One of the inherent balancing factors to planeswalkers is that "any" deck can deal with them by attacking with creatures; and this is in turn why one big factor in the power of a planeswalker is whether it has some way to protect themselves (either make them harder to attack, or make blockers, or bounce/kill/shrink creatures). This one has both a thing making it much harder to attack, and a further way to kill whatever problematic flyers the opponent may have. I fear that's going to end up too non-interactive.
My suggestions would be: 1) To keep "destroy target creature" but move it down to the middle, costing [-2] or [-3]. Even Vraska, the notorious assassin, costs -2 or -3 to kill a creature on each of her cards; likewise Chandra will charge you -3 to kill a creature for most of her cards.
If you really want to keep the "kill stuff and get stronger from it", then I think you should change the [+1] to something like Sorin Markov's: deal 2 damage to target and you gain 2 life.
Foe-Razer Regent + Blood Tax
Five damage to player, unless they let you hit a creature with it. And a fight lord. Who also fights.
So we could do "Fight unless you pay"?
Or a lord that lets you pay your way out of things?
Or how about giving you the abilty to fight things yourself? How would tht work. Obviously, you taking damage is simple enough - but how much should you deal?
... a silver border card with no text beyond "Fight target player" seems like a hilariously bad idea.
We could have counter on an enchantment that tells you how much damage you do; but then it feels more like that doing the fighting than you. Dealing your health in damage would be pretty much flat destruciton though, you're just on a different scale. Form of the dragon maybe? Flat 5?
Yeah, we'll do that. Meh.
It doens't. The correct wording would be 'at most' but that's not what I wrote; and it was funnier to mock it than to correct it.
How does the ability work then? When do you activate it?
Hey, that was quick! :)
So the activated ability is supposed to be instant speed?
I don't get how the two abilities are supposed to interact. The ability to move the Equipment around by sacrificing the equpped creature is far less interesting since you sacrifice the equipped creature anyway at end of turn (and the same for whaterever you attach this to by activating the ability).
Maybe something like 'kicker for equip costs': > When ~ becomes attached to a creature, you may sacrifice a creature. If you do, it also gains double strike and trample for as long as ~ remains attached to it.
? That way the initial equip cost can be lower as well.
Also, "or" in a cost works: Heartwood Shard
Armor of Thorns + Blade of the Bloodbraided
Well, two things that sound like equipment; we're clearly making some kind of knightly raiment here.
The first is... a Giant Growth variant; can be permanently +2/+2, or you can use it at instant speed for a really horribly worded temporary boost.
The second is... double strike and trample - and needs a sacrifice to equip. Ouchie.
So I'm thinking an enchanted suit of armour that eats its wearer.
Bleh; I can only get about half the words on that I'd need for this. It needs a second way to get it on. ... Can I put 'or' in a cost? Let's try that.
It's still not quite there; I really do want a way to get it into play the first time, more quickly. Oh well.
No, I put flavour text mocking my templating skills as flavour text.
So being Lure this is not the ability from the Hinterland DFC at all.
Also did you put reminder text in the spot of the flavor text?
I agree, but it's a green thing. Green prefers one-a-turn temporary boosts; where red and white get breathing. For stackable boosts, green tends to get permanent +1/+1 counters. It's not a hard rule, but it's certainly a tendency. It's also easier to keep track of.
I guess it could have been +3/+3 really, to make it even greener. But this way it keeps a bit more of the falcon.
The costs should be ordered as
, right?
Why the once per turn limitation? I don't see it as too much of an upgrade that you might at some point be able to activate it twice.
Hinterland Hermit* + Mesa Falcon
Ah! It's Jar-Jar! Kill it!
Ahem. Ok; it's an old-school toughness-breathing bird. And a werewolf who you sometimes have to block.
Those two abilities go together pretty well, actually. Though that's a green ablity; not a red one, as I cannot comment on that card for some reason. (Red gets 'target creature must block')
And to make it a green toughness boost, it should be a bigger one-off rather than a continual pump. Which is fine; the Lure wants to be once too.
Cost for the pump wants to be about
. And, to pay homage to Lure we'll make that 
.
Creature type... the ability has been all over the freakin place. Ergo, I shall make this a dinosaur. And give it alliteration.
Rarity - can't be common; the lure ability is just too much of a bomb. But it's not exciting enough for rare; so uncommon it is. Mock my templating, and we're done.
And I just realised that the terrible jar-jar joke really did end up influencing the card; ah well.
I think it would be fine if it was just scaling up the damage, but the fact that you can split the damage of the spell and the triggered abilirty over multiple targets is worrying me.
Thing is you often have an uncommon that let's you pay some mana for a little direct damage, but usually the trigger condition is something that is less likely to cause direct damage itself e. g. "Whenever you cycle a card" etc.
But instants and sorceries in a deck that plays red? Quite likely to be burn already and now turning 2-for-1.