Duel Decks Starcraft: Remastered: Recent Activity
| Duel Decks Starcraft: Remastered: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | FAQ |
Recent updates to Duel Decks Starcraft: Remastered: (Generated at 2025-06-22 05:46:22)
I mean, it ain't that far off :/ It's a small ship with a circular/sphere like reactor thing. I could see sentries being reimagined as such in a live action movie for example. How about this?
Well, anyway, I found this as well - which actually looks like it's supposed to be a sentry - though I don't who's the artist.
I mean, it ain't that far off :/ It's a small ship with a circular/sphere like reactor thing. I could see sentries being reimagined as such in a live action movie for example. How about this?
Well, anyway, I found this as well - which actually looks like it's supposed to be a giant sentry or something - though I don't who's the artist.
Yes, but that looks nothing like a sentry. You need art that at the very least, resembles the thing it's supposed to be.
The one on the art isn't a sentry, right? So you can place kind of whatever there. This is something that I found within 5 minutes. Is it good enough? Could be seen as a hovercraft of some sort.
Regarding the art in general, I would do away with the ones that are used currently in existing mtg cards. Finding generic scifi art isn't hard.
Not really, never thought about it that deeply, more like what feels good and what goes over well in playtesting. "Which things do I want to one-shot"?
For this particular example though, the 4 damage that the Battlecruiser fires every turn is a Yamato Cannon, so they should be the same amount. Wiki entry
No good arts of Protoss Sentries, and I don't like using renders when I can help it. I removed the dude-for-scale on the image.
Is dealing 4 damage like a theme / "a magic number" here or something? This, Nuclear Strike, Battlecruiser, Spider Mine, Caustic Spray and Explosive Payload (6 cards) all deal exactly 4 damage. It's the kind of thing that once you notice it, it's hard to unsee it. If it's unintentional, then perhaps have the damage amounts vary a bit.
For comparison
I find the name a bit too misleading. Ie. "Sacrifice a Drone" vs "Sacrifice Drone" seems like an easy thing to mess up.
EDIT: There doesn't seem to be other Drones in the set so whatever I guess.
This art is definitely a mismatch if that bulky thing is supposed to be a 1/1.
I can't really speak for artifacts since they are pretty much a "lost cause" in my eyes (bestiary requires
though, where drawing cards off creatures makes sense) ...
> "I'm keeping this because Terran, being stuck in
, needs some long term engines to keep card flow going."
... but undermining the color combination's main weakness seems like a rather questionable goal + it's not like there aren't tools within the colors to do that strictly speaking -
's Act on Impulse drawing and rummaging (including wheel of fortune effects of various sizes than favor being hellbent - ie Dangerous Wager) should be good enough - for an aggressive deck at least.
If you do make it "power two or less," you let players have the fun moment of realizing "oh hey morphs do work"
For the second ability, I templated the unblockability to the "power 2 or less." of red. I realize I could just actually use that outright. Until of course my playtesters die from a Marine + Stimpack combo and complain. Haha.
For the first ability, I had the same line of thinking as dude1818. There is precedent for 'if this thing happens, pay X. If you do, draw a card'. See Seer's Sundial, Lifecrafter's Bestiary, Mind's Eye. If needed, I'll upshift this to rare.
I'm keeping this because Terran, being stuck in RW, needs some long term engines to keep card flow going.
Yes it doesn't need to be a reflexive trigger, I changed it because "if you do..." has English connotations of being optional. "when you do..." makes it clearer that the ability is mandatory.
It doesn't affect gameplay, so I chose the clearer option.
Mm, it would be redder to put "Target creature cannot block face down creatures this turn" or even "Creatures cannot block face-down creatures this turn" (though the latter would really want to be a sacrifice, not an every-turn ability)
The reason why Seer's Sundial (a
effect btw) exists is because artifacts can do whatever heck they want from "exile all permanents" to "draw seven cards" to any keyword you can think of. 
= 
when it comes to colorless cards.
However, for the colors themselves, the official line still is that they're supposed adhere to the color pie.
I'd say the first ability reminds me of Seer's Sundial. Just because blue is the best at card draw, doesn't mean there aren't ways of giving to other colors. This looks fine
This is another artifact that seems like it should require blue mana if anything.
Drawing cards? Blue. Making creatures unblockable? Blue.
Now, it could be assumed that face-down creatures are 2/2 and red does have a slice of the pie there where it grants "unblockability" to creatures with 2 or less power. So, I guess it's fine-ish?
There seems to be a typo in the second ability:
> Target face-down creature with can't be blocked this turn.
This really doesn't need to be a reflexive trigger. Those are only useful if you want to avoid the rest of the effect being countered if the target is removed, but that isn't relevant here
Looks very legit. And tempts the opponent into somehow making their side untargetable. I like it.
Changed to reflexive trigger for no reason other than clearer English and so people won't think the sacrifice is optional
Switch 2rr > 4r
Added sorcery restriction
Three > two
Changed loot to attack trigger
Three > two
Switch w -> 1w
Yeah but not by much I think. I based it off Arcane Encyclopedia
That still seems like way more value than they'd give red in a normal set