temporary storage: Recent Activity
| temporary storage: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Cult World references | Aerial vs. Aquatic mechanical ideas | Clan Lore and Individuals | Katonah's Plane Tests & Details |
Recent updates to temporary storage: (Generated at 2025-12-14 19:34:41)
See Burned Home.
See Clantom Hoodlum.
Mystery and Intrigue support.
Clantom is derived from Tom Clancy
See Fall in with the Wong Crowd. What kind of planeswalker would exist in a plane with a drug problem? Who is responsible for the drug problem? Ghoulbark's illness and search for cures might make him find (name-bland) poppy. An opiod painkiller would fit the bill for something Ghoulbark would use to ease his suffering as he searches for a cure.
. Gain a poison counter" instead.
The +1 was just something that felt right for Ghoulbark. I had envisioned this being a six-drop. If it would be better for gameplay, I'd be fine making that ability be "Lands tap for an additional
The -3 ability is supposed to give the idea of feeling invincible from the drugs.
The third ability originally wasn't going to have poison counters as I wanted it to just feel like a traditional ultimate ability. This is supposed to represent the beneficial properties of that type of drug when used correctly.
All this being said, I don't think Ghoulbark is malicious to the point of being a drug dealer or prescribing it to others. However, he'd likely tell people how the drug he created helped him, and then show them how to make it, not considering or paying attention to the consequences of its effect on others.
See Former Junkie.
See Narcan Shot.
See Foul-Blood Drinker.
See Speech Director.
See Spreading Overdose.
Minimum of two creatures individually each having a power of 4 or greater.
Is this two or more creatures with total power 4 or greater or individually they have 4 power each? Bonkers strong in the right deck.
See Stoic Stance.
See Murderous Message. Trying a different formatting, but the intention/idea is the same.
See Instant and Sorcery Mechanic Test #2.
The concept is an ability word that triggers based on something relevant to the color. For this example, green's noncreature destruction. Other green ones could be playing multiple lands, or a big creature. Blue would have ones that would care about drawing extra cards, or tapping things down maybe, black would care about creatures that died, or if something was sacrificed maybe.
Anyway, the idea is that without the Ability Word Name, you don't have the whole picture, just a fragment.
Mechanics that are dependent on the opponent are usually problematic. I suppose you have seen the often suggested version that is really similar to surge and gets discount on your own spells cast, right?
It wold be interesting to know the reason why you'd prefer this - usually the above-mentioned version can be calibrated fairly well by deciding how much generic mana you allow in the cost.
I'm especially baffled that you went from a mechanic that counts your instants and sorceries to a mechanic that counts your opponent's spells.
Seems like a workable mechanic for instants. You'll almost always get a discount of 1, but that's ok, you can just price that in. I agree it's likely to be slightly format warping - it'll impact against rush decks.
And while this usually won't aid sorceries much, a potential after-combat discount of 1 or 2 is always nice; and you are indeed setting up for the very rare "Ok, whoops, we dogpiled and now are casting 8 cost at each other for free" multiplayer situations that will echo down in legend.
So yeah, I like the basic idea of the mechanic.
Reminds me a bit of surge. Knowing this mechanic is in the format would discourage playing extra cards to avoid enabling your opponent's instants. Meanwhile sorceries like this will almost never get discounted anyway