Guild Accomplices: Recent Activity
| Guild Accomplices: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Guild Accomplices: (Generated at 2025-07-02 00:00:42)
| Guild Accomplices: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Guild Accomplices: (Generated at 2025-07-02 00:00:42)
I'm not sure the Color Pie is -as- relevant as we think it is. If it's supposed to apply to new (Standard) cards then a number of things have fallen through.
In Standard right now Black has enchantment destruction for the first time ever, Blue has an exile type "beast within" removal for creatures and artifacts, white is gaining several non-classically white abilities, from a non-creature cycle cost reduction, to non-plains land search, to cost reduction by resource removal. Red has a tutor, which hasn't happened since Tarkir, and only then due to it being a Planeswalker themed / relevant card.
The only color that's not really breaking the pie as of late is Green, and most players complain that Green is in most commander products.
As far as Pioneer legal being a boundary, I don't think that's a valid place to look. Historic is a much more "hand crafted" format than Pioneer, with how they're permitted to just add cards because they want them, we can probably tell more cleanly what "odd, older" effects they want colors to still have.
Still, when comparing the strength of all the effects, the borrow ability seems to be a bit slanted. So going to rebalance the choices.
Color pie is supposed to apply to all new cards, whatever format they're printed for. Maro doesn't look at supplemental sets very often, so breaks slip through more often. But basically, if it's not Pioneer-legal, it's probably not valid for comparison
I mean... they're not part of the modern colour pie. Wizards acknowledge those old blue pingers exist, and will reprint them in reprint-type products like Commander Anthology. That's like claiming Beast Within or Chaos Warp are precedent for Vindicate effects in mono-G or mono-R.
Eh. I dunno. Maybe the colour pie does only apply to Standard-legal products. Things like Commander decks do play a little more fast-and-loose with the colour pie, so I guess this might not be impossible pie-wise.
It still definitely needs to lose a couple of lines of text, though. "Only a few more lines of text than Last Stand" is not a good place to be.
You're not incorrect, though if you're talking about blue though Prodigal Sorcerer, Thornwind Faeries, and Rootwater Thief are all cards printed in the last 5 years, indicating that Wizards is okay blue -creatures- that deal damage still being in the player card pool.
> Moraff wrote: "Evangelize, Debt of Loyalty, Preacher."
With those examples I bet I can find good arguments for burn in blue from those time periods e. g. Psionic Sliver, Psychic Allergy, Mawcor.
White and green already have restrictive edict effects: Wing Shards, Gideon's Triumph, Clip Wings, Mercy Killing, Run Afoul This is not bending that all that much further.
We won't really hash out blue having threaten, as there's countless examples of blue having restrictive control effects, and theft effects for all permanents types.
White is the more likely break in this situation, with examples for white being Evangelize, Debt of Loyalty, Preacher. White also has control settings effects via flicker. The only color that that doesn't have actual theft effects is Green.
Finally, colorless has this effect in a more permanent way.
The aim of this card is to be a "commander-centric" type card. Playable in any deck, but requiring some mana choices while restricting what dual color and mono color decks have access to.
Emblazoned Golem's templating was the original X phrasing, but was super wordy.
You can certainly cut the first line about matching colour identity. It is naturally colourless so fits in every deck anyway. I'd also say cut the final line. I don't think it's wise to try to make a card playable in literally every deck.
You might like to follow Emblazoned Golem's templating for the X phrasing.
I think I don't quite follow the aim of this card. Is it really intended to give a white-green deck Diabolic Edict and a white-blue deck Threaten?
Thanks to Vitenka for a better templating, the text is still iffy, but as this was envisioned as a CI based last stand, it only has a few extra lines of text when compared to it's inspiration.
Addressing Rarity complexity in a preconstructed product, in this case, the Commander cards:
Rarity in Commander Precons isn't used for complexity reasons, but it does allow for a small guideline. Instead it's used for deck distribution frequency. An "asfan" of sorts.
Common - All/Most Decks
Uncommon - Some/Most decks
Rare - Some / One deck
Mythic - One deck
Certainly too complex for common. But it's a card for commander; so rarity isn't all that relevant.
Doing five different things is never going to fit on a sensible card. Still, it's clearly a thing we want - and it does make sense here: Do everything except things you're not allowed to do.
Still; as an attempt:
Use no more than one mana of each colour to cast ~. Choose X of the below that do not match the colours used: * White - Scry 1 * Blue - ...
Though that's still going to end up flyspeck text.
Horribly wordy card. Not only too complex for common, but too hard to grok to be even a fine design.
I could see a much simpler design for this cardname that just works on color identity.
There are reasons to just protect your creatures during combat, or to just do the goad portion attacking player, and a reason to do both.
Players A (You), Player B, Player C
Scenario 1: Player B alpha strikes Player C, Player C overloads casts some sort of wide answer to an alpha strike with your team as collateral damage. Cyclonic Rift / Fated Retribution / Route / etc.
Response: You phase out your team. You still don't have a blocking team, but you will have creature's once your upkeep returns.
Scenario 2: Player B sends an attack towards C, C chump blocks and takes minor damage. You goad the attacking team then resend them towards C.
Scenario 3: Player B is fighting for second place, so sends a show of force at you to pave the way for player C. You declare blockers. It's clear you'll lose on the exchange, and that player B attacked you as player C was a horrible option.
While C would be able to kill you after B's attack, the same isn't true if C had to survive B first.
You cast the spell entwined for 7 mana. You phase out your blockers, effectively "fogging" this combat, as your creature's neither deal nor receive damage, but B's creatures are still able to do damage, and are now on their merry way towards C.
There are other time's the spell would work out, but those are just off the top of my head.
I think the spell as is should work, as you're thinking of just the attacker. As mentioned in the example, the attacker and the defender of that attack are both involved.
A standard multiplayer pod involving you and 3 opponents would largely mean that unless the second player attacked that turn suffered no losses, or felt the need to also open themselves up to a simlar cast, (tricky blue players and all.) that they may proceed lightly.
Not to mention that often times a single player isn't the only defending player in a multiplayer attack step. Having 15 attackers spread across 3 players is one thing, but then suddenly the defending side finds their creature's with already marked damage needing to fend off the creature's they thought were after other people. Or in the case of something like "commander damage" being sent elsewhere. They add up.