SM Serious Card Dump: Recent Activity
SM Serious Card Dump: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to SM Serious Card Dump: (Generated at 2024-05-19 14:59:34)
SM Serious Card Dump: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to SM Serious Card Dump: (Generated at 2024-05-19 14:59:34)
Hm. Reminds me of Tek or Cromat. And of course of Brassling :)
graft 0? sure why not
Like my Contaminating Licid?
Edit: it's no longer a reanimation Licid.
Fun, though it should probably be a DFC. ;)
It's been a while, but how does this look?
obligatory render
I don't think Burning Inquiry is busted with this either. I do, however think that if I was to build this deck, I would do this:
4x Merfolk Looter
4x Soldevi Sage
4x Lore Broker
Burning Inquiry probably wouldn't make the list because it, itself, is not a creature. Seems like a good place to start if you wanted to playtest this card.
Yep, that is a bug, and one for which I already have a local fix, going live probably tonight.
I contend that Burning Inquiry wouldn't actually be all that busted. Hitting the jackpot off it can't be all that likely.
Also, possible bug: the tooltip for DFCs cuts off in the night side, so only the left half of that side is visible. I don't know if anyone else can reproduce that (flip cards have always been busted for me, yet it doesn't seem like anyone else notices a problem), but I'm just putting it out there.
I propose that the three cards you draw should all be Akroma.
Oh. Why hello there Burning Inquiry! Want to help me make an Akroma on the cheap?
finis
I like it and the Immovable Object, but I think it should be like a super Ball Lightning. Like 4RR 20/1 Haste, trample, sac at EOT.
Or make it like Phage, the Untouchable. "When ~ deal's combat damage to a player, that player loses the game."
Just some suggestions. Lol. :D
Ahh. Fine. Still, they only released the new card face recently.
That "new" wording has been the case for a couple of years, and it was the wording SM was referring to in January.
So yeah, this would have been nicer than the new wording on Animate Dead :)
Are there any precedents? I don't know how the original phasing rules worked, but the current rules say "Except for rules and effects that specifically mention phased-out permanents, a phased-out permanent is treated as though it does not exist. It can‘t affect or be affected by anything else in the game," which to me sounds like it would need an exception for dealing combat damage as well (and for untapping in the untap step? but not for having combat damage removed AEOT?).
Have I misinterpreted something? Does "attack and block" include dealing combat damage? I wouldn't have thought it normally does: it something says "can't attack" it normally still deals combat damage if its already attacking.
But assuming the wording works or is tweaked, yes, a very interesting idea that does just about work in the rules! :)
You know, I didn't give this much thought at first, but I kind of like the idea of a set focusing on phased out of play. Cards that hang out in limbo, do their own thing, and interact with each other in some sort of super-shadow world. It would make a pretty cool block.
Nothing prevents phased-out creatures from dealing or receiving combat damage, except that the act of a creature phasing out is explicitly stated as removing it from combat. Here it never phases out, it just always existed that way, with the card text accounting for how it can enter combat in the first place from phaseland.
"ETB phased out" works by perfect analogy with "ETB tapped". They're both nothing more than the preemptive setting of one particular status. It won't set off the usual ETB triggers, but them's the breaks.
Sure it can attack. I don't know so much about the 'dealing combat damage' part...