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 2025-07-06 12:15:03)
| Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Community Mashup Set: (Generated at 2025-07-06 12:15:03)
Mmm, might be a bit too good, after all, lots of draft environments don't have 3-point wraths.
I was also thinking about its potential the other way - animate the opponents lands, so that you can kill them. (Which is why I went 3/3, to make that a bit riskier)
Remind me of Liege of the Tangle. Which was an utterly ridiculous mythic. This is a nice uncommon take on the idea. If you do this on turn 1 it'll be tempting to turn all your lands into 3/3s until they play a blocker, but very risky against anyone with Wrath effects.
The infinite wash in a single turn was intentional; not sure about the mana ability bit; but hey, if you can make use of a massively negative creature, power to you.
Has a trick in which you can respond to the ability on the stack, and wash as much mana as you want as long as you do it right now. Also has a Split Second trick, since the ability is a mana ability and can't be responded to. Funny. I'd love to see a player who had a reasonable reason for exploiting both loopholes.
That would indeed be the point of that ability, yes. It's pretty clear it must be usable the way you want it to be, since it doesn't do anything otherwise. So it's a teaching aid; people will learn what it means, so I can then use hybrid mana gainers all over the place later.
this could be misleading. using the same symbol twice, which has different meanings as input vs. output. because the symbols are identical, it seems you are getting the same mana back. but in fact not really since you can filter into other half color.
And now I'm thinking a much better card would have been:
Reveal (a bunch of, ten maybe?) cards from the top of an opponents deck. Put a creature from among them into play under your control. Then they may put another creature from among them into play - if they do, they fight.
Put the rest back in order of your choice.
So if you hit zero creatures, it's pure hate-scry. If you hit 1, it's great for you; if you hit 2, it's probably still great for you, and usually you've at least got rid of 2 creatures from among them leaving them land-locked.
Sometimes, of course, it'll backfire and they'll pull, say, two creatures that kill each other, but regenerate for mana they have up and you don't have access to. But that's the fun.
Ah well, pretend I made that card instead of this one.
Yup - it's giving them their next five cards in the worst order, sending a creature to the graveyard. Unless they get really lucky, in which case it puts a creature into play and kills this off.
I guess the 'fight' makes it less bluey. Maybe it should just be "Put a creature among those cards into their graveyard, and the rest on top in any order" to make it clearer.
but then it's pure upside; and not discount-giving.
Reminiscent of Gruul Ragebeast. Except it's not card advantage, and instead normally the opposing creature just arrives and dies. This should probably be a red or (without flying) green creature.
So, ok, this is now an outright "Win really freakin hard" card. It's an 8 cost triple-devotion mythic.
And as well as the cost, it has a second factor preventing it going crazy early on.
I stand by it. Especially with Grip of Chaos in play.
gibber this was supposed to be "Each player does"... but a miswording makes it even crazier . Doing that!
Oop, hit the italics bug again. Adding a linebreak.
Green's fine to get 3/5s at common. Green gets 5/5s at common, though nothing else does except blue.
The Gatherer search term would be "Spider creature token", as on Spider Spawning.
And yes, this looks green to me.
The alliterative sequences were hilarious though. We should do a design challenge to come up with the most alliterative card text.
Oh yes; all the way back then. Probably not a good precedent any more; but does suggest I got the price right :)
Abu Ja'far
Kind of similar to Loyal Sentry, so there is a precedence.
add 'without paying'; "cast without paying" is another thing that needs fixed terminology.
typo in name, oops
Which is a very white thing to do.
no wonder solat golem sounded so familiar
it pumps up smaller creatures, but bumps down bigger ones.
I meant both, I think. You're probably right on the reminder text. Indeed, it'd probably instead become "Equipped creatures you control get +2/+2" at a slightly higher cost.