Limbosis: the Sixth Circle: Recent Activity
| Limbosis: the Sixth Circle: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Themes | TODO designs |
Recent updates to Limbosis: the Sixth Circle: (Generated at 2025-07-01 23:59:48)
updated wording
I made a thread about this on NGA some time ago.
added flavor text
"As an additional cost to cast another Eye spell, you may exile any number of cards from your graveyard. That spell costs
less to cast for each card exiled this way." -> "As an additional cost to cast Eye spells, you may exile any number of cards from your graveyard. Those spells cost 
less to cast for each card exiled this way."
added
to activation cost
Why do you feel it's an issue? I could actually see an issue here that this currently reads like it might interact with the likes of Nexus Neophyte where it doesn't. (EDIT: not a good example this ability doesn't even cost mana)
I'm not particularly a fan of the version that would just remove a single counter at a time since it doesn't really scale at all. IMO this sort of scaling is good to have at common to create some excitement for them without being too unhealthy.
Maybe I could hit two birds with one stone if I add
mana cost to the activated ability. Hmmm... Maybe one ability that has no mana cost associated with it that just removes one counter to scour 1 and another that has X cost? Probably ends up with too much text in that case.
A 3/4 vigilance for
is pretty decent so having the ability cost 
might be reasonable that this would have somewhat of a lackluster ability in addition to its body.
Thx for all the feedback btw!
Being more of a public zone (ie. more shared) is what I was thinking the role of exile would be in comparison to zones such as the graveyard.
The processor mirror would certainly be strange, not sure if it would be 'much worse' per se. Maybe you could expand on that point?
I don't think delve is exactly comparable since it's for graveyard where there are so very much interaction with that zone where as exile is much more static.
You can put and redistribute the buffs here among the creatures you control however you want. For example, you could have three copies of this in play, which after draw step would be each putting those temporary counters on a fourth creature, giving it essentially +3/+3 UEOT. The counters are there to help with keeping track of it all if you have to distribute say some ten +1/+1 freely among four targets.
The mechanic with most resemblance to this I can think of is exalted, where in the mechanics section where I was even questioning if it was meaningfully different enough but I guess only playtesting would really only reveal that.
That the implementation creates interactions with anything that care about counters is just extra gravy.
The temporariness as I had imagined it would be a designation of the counter itself, akin say whether a creature is monstrous or not. In the case of proliferate, the new counter would not have that state (say if you clone a creature that had become monstrous, the clone wouldn't be monstrous).
Sure. What do you think of this being limited to affecting only your opponent?
Do you have any suggestions as to how to modify it to rectify the potential misunderstandings there?
Reminder texts aren't super strict on their wordings so I wouldn't consider that a huge issue but mayhaps more of an annoyance.
On another note, I saw a pretty interesting rework of this design here which used phasing. I haven't thought much of phasing - mainly since it doesn't interact with the exile theme of the set - but it's probably worth of note in that it would clean up this sort of design (since phased out/in cards retain counters on them naturally.)
lel, ok didn't think of that - adding battlefield.
In comparison to those cards this has two things going for it in that it's temporary (like Banished Priest) but not targeting (ie. edict) like Gatekeeper of Malakir.
I don't think it has any NWO flags since it's not card advantage (at least not permanently). Banisher Priest is similar in that sense but it's targeting which is generally better (although edict like effects have their specialities like superseding hexproof and the like).
As far as efficiency goes, I don't have anything against efficient cards at common (rather the problematic cards at common are the ones that are too 'impactful'). EDIT: oh and btw also Alabaster Host Intercessor exists at common.
deactivated
I gotta agree with you there. Top-deck manipulation - including that of your opponent - is a notable theme here through it's generally in low amounts where as this going full fatesealing lock. I could see that sort of thing in UB in the vein of Head Games.
I'll just deactive for now until I come up what to do with exactly and in what color.
This is neat. Seems efficient.
Neither Gatekeeper of Malakir nor Faceless Butcher nor Fairgrounds Warden/Banisher Priest is a common.
Weird that the counters remain as it moves to exile, but get removed as it returns.
Your reminder text quickly becomes misleading with any sort of cost-reduction.
The effect strikes me as green rather than red - and doing it to opponents is something I'd rather not do in volume at all.
Centering using counters seems quite a complex way to do "This creature gets +N/+N as long as it's your turn." Is the kind of design of Vithian Dryad worth that complexity?
How is temporariness tracked? How does it interact with e. g. proliferate?
Infinite delve?
"Scour X" is definitely a better idea than "Scry X".
Yet I feel the true issue is that this maybe shouldn't be a common with an X in the activation cost at all to begin with.
Perfectly fine. Viscera Seer-ish.
Compare Defiler of Dreams & cycle:
I really dislike costs where both players use the same pool of resources - especially at common. This can be paid by turning cards any player owns face down, so you can use your mana ability to deny your opponent their mana ability.
Imagine how much worse Processors would interact in a mirror if you could bury exiled cards from either player rather than just those owned by opponents. Alternatively imagine the consequences if delve could use opponents' graveyards in addition to your own.
The issue with battle on this kind of effect is that you also no longer care just about who controls them, but who "protects" them. I myself have no problem writing "battles or planeswalkers you protect", or even "permanents you protect" (most preferred by me since it covers the type that's not evergreen without mentioning it) thought it's technically an extension of the rules; it's just something that could easily be done (a planeswalker's protector is always its controller).
You might feel different about it. You might also be fine with the IMO too clunky wording of "you, battles you protect or planeswalkers you control".
Dream Feaster -> Dreamleech
glare -> gaze