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 2025-07-05 16:07:34)
| Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Community Mashup Set: (Generated at 2025-07-05 16:07:34)
Well; that and stylistically I wanted to have it be "Urk, I should have held back mana, wish I hadn't cast that. Ok; Thanks Phy, I guess I didn't. Cool. Counterspell now."
Heh... I guess that's true. Play a lot of discard on round 2, 3 and 4, this on 5, and next turn cast Avatar of Will, Avatar of Will, sac, sac, Fireball for 16.
So that's...
> Sacrifice a creature you cast before your last turn: Add mana equal to its mana cost to your mana pool. Any player may activate this ability.
Fun with Scornful Egotist ;) Works okay on things like Delraich too. The "cast" criterion is an odd one, but does mean you can get around reanimation shenanigans.
Red Alert + Ring of Evos Isle
"Everyone can case everything they can cast, all at once" and "One of your blue creatures grows and is evilly haxproof, albeit at a cost of keeping mana open"
Oh now, there's an interaction. Having to keep mana open is, frankly, a real problem. What say we remove that little difficulty?
Kinda abusable with ETB creatures, but that (and
mana costs) is also kinda the POINT; so let's just make it cost enough for that to be a valid use. Has small memory issues; but I don't think I mind. Name it after the famous altar and done.
Firebreathing is at least a reprint of Firebreathing. So they're really both printed cards.
But yes, this is very sensible and I'd fully expect to see it someday.
Plague Fiend + Firebreathing
Huh; if I had to guess which was the official card and which the user-generated one...
Anyhow; this seems like a perfrectly good ability to enchanterise.
Cost... probably could be straight up
, but let's play safe.
Interestingly, this has ended up pretty similar to another Magma card: Magmasaur. (The original source Magma Mine is pretty close to Shrine of Burning Rage these days.) This card also reminds me of Ashling the Pilgrim.
To stay more in-pie and also let his ability trigger more easily, how about this guy has firebreathing rather than getting +1/+1?
Magma Elemental used Self Destruct
...it was super-effective!
Magma Mine + Werewolf ... 7/7 for 3?! I mean, your opponent missing their 3 drop is something you should punish them for, yes, but REALLY? Plus, it's a DFC. Not going there. Next card. Algol, the Daemon-Star
Ok, so. A pair of direct damage cards. One that does a nice "countdown to dooom" - albeit over pricedly (though it makes a finisher for blue or white lockdown decks I guess)
So, hmm.. Yeah; I like the idea of a creature that grows and explodes.
Mogg Bombers + Insane Tomb Builder
Huh. Two creatures that both act as a trap.
You mean you'll steal their mail? I'll steal every tenth letter!
The cycling to discard and destroy is very clunky. I'd rather have "
, Discard CARDNAME: Destroy target land." Although it probably should be five mana anyway.
Thank you, that makes sense.
"Restriction" and "requirement" in 509.1 terms are basically negative and positive statements, yes. "Must" is a positive requirement; "can't" is a negative restriction. I think Wizards probably use "if able" as a clue in templating towards the way that restrictions trump requirements.
Oh, good analysis, thank you. I don't know exactly how my putative ability would be phrased, I added "if able" automatically, I'm not sure if it should have it or not.
I agree that it feels like it should default to zero, but there's no clear implementation of the rules that makes that happen without rewriting it to be two different effects.
I think part of the confusion is that I'm not sure if "restriction" and "requirement" refer to negative and positive instructions ("can't attack" or "must attack") or to "must" and "if able" instructions, or if it's assumed, but not stated, that those always match up.
So I think I instinctively interpret "exactly one" as both a restriction "at most one" and a requirement "at least one". Then if you attack, all the restrictions are met by not blocking with the ember beasts, and then you're unable to fulfil the requirement. But I'm not sure there's any way to legally support that interpretation. (I do think "choose 0 or 2" is likely to be misunderstood even by non-pedants.)
I'd interpret "must be blocked by exactly one creature if able" as a requirement, but not a restriction. (It includes "if able" which seems to make it unlikely to be a restriction.) So if a creature with "must be blocked by exactly one creature if able" is attacking, and the defender has two Ember Beast, then the attacker's requirement for 1 can't be met, so defender gets to choose 2 or 0.
Confusingly, the situation isn't quite the same with Krosan Vorine. That has a separate requirement (Provoke) and restriction (no more than one), and restrictions trump requirements, so defender isn't able to block with the targeted Ember Beast either on its own or in conjunction with another Ember Beast. (They would be able to block with some random other vanilla though.)
On colour distribution, "you must block me" is normally green, but red and white get to dabble in it from time to time.
Jack - I... don't know. I was about to post the below, but I realised I'd stopped making sense. You may indeed get the 0-or-2 choice, although my gut feel (often wrong in Magic rules!) says you should only get the 0 choice.
Jack - that falls under the heading of restrictions and requirements. When you attack or block, you must fulfill as many requirements as possible having violated as few restrictions as possible.
So here "can't attack or block alone" is a restriction, and "must be blocked by exactly one" is (I think) both a requirement and a restriction. You can't honour both restrictions, but ...
"If you Wear the Master Naughty Costume... the Pirate Bears will attack you on sight regardless if they know your Naughty Bear or no."
Fair enough.
I have no idea; and so will say this simpler version prevents such brain pain.
Oh, simple but effective, I like it. You could embrace the flavour further with "must be blocked by exactly one creature if able"[1], although it's not likely to make much difference.
[1] Although come to think of it, if it says "by exactly one", and someone has two "can't attack or block alone", do they get to choose between blocking with 0 and blocking with 2?
Malentis Privateer + Astral Arena
Ok the arena is "One fight at a time please, no pushing gentlemen"
And. Hmm, a vanilla. 2/2 pirate. Well, that's a bear then, isn't it? And "Pirate Bear" is already in my dropdown; so I wonder where I already created that? Oh! Hah! Tetraid Ursine which is already a card which plays with blocking expectations.
Ok, blue gets evasion. Red gets "Hah! Stop me puny mortal!" LEt's do that. Red gets 2/2 at cmc2 with a downside, or 3 with an upside; and the upside is nice and simple and useful for red. No flavourtext; leave the terrible pun in the name alone; more impact there.
Searching for "Pirate bears" by the way.. leads to a serious level of wtf. http://naughtybear.wikia.com/wiki/Pirates