Iscandar Lives: Recent Activity
| Iscandar Lives: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Iscandar Info | Skeleton | ISL - Comment this cards! | Shrine Cycle - Changed rare cycle!! | FAQ | Looking for Help! |
Recent updates to Iscandar Lives: (Generated at 2025-05-02 11:58:21)
What i ment with my comment was, i wanted an aura card that was important for the format. Rancor obviously is maybe to good of an aura.
There was a window... mind you a very small window... where Rancor was listed as the highest rated card in all of Gatherer (A rash of 5 stars when Magic 2013 came out pushed it over the edge. That said, it's pretty impressive that it was primed to do that.)
I'm not saying we can't improve on Rancor, but I kind of think of it as the Lightning Bolt of Enchant Creatures... you really can't get much better without dragging the entire game up a step in the process.
Haha yeah i thought anyone would disagree. But i really liked the Aura mathers deck that is circling around on both Standard and Modern. So i was thinking of bumping the enchantments on Iscandar 2. The next set. Not sure yet
Um. I strongly disagree with that aim; but yeah, it manages that.
Thats not what i meant, i meant i love the new kind of cards they make that combine different things. Not to change the overall language. Like this card i like the way it says. And just making it Block me and Fight me wouldn't make it as appealing to me.
Yeah probably, will do some change to it before final release. Want it to be the new Rancor of the format.
It works fine, and it's potentially an interesting sub game.
But it's going to be a real PITA to actually represent at the table.
And I don't see what you're gaining over counting something that is already there.
In fact, I BET this exact mechanic was considered for the upcoming set, before they settled on "Devotion to" instead.
This is very, what's the word, parasitic. It can potentially be a fine mechanic in its own set - but outside of that set pretty much just annoying. Add the "Keep track of several kinds of fiddly tokens" and you're just asking for pain.
I think the idea of "Card increments something that its faction cares about" is a fine idea for a mechanic. But I don't think this particular implementation nails it quite well enough.
...Aiming to "challenge Magic's wording" is a very dangerous thing. What you might not realise is that Magic's wording is extremely carefully chosen, and something the templating and rules team have put vast amounts of time into.
There are major problems that can happen if something's not templated (worded) correctly. Some designers might think that their cards will work fine even if their wording's wrong. But there are so many corner cases possible with Magic's vast history of cards. What happens if something gets bounced in response? Or if something becomes a creature, stops being a creature, changes controller, gains new abilities, changes name? What happens if the damage is redirected, prevented, turned into lifegain or cards drawn or tokens instead? All of these are possible with existing black-bordered Magic cards.
Now I'm not saying you have to template cards precisely. This is an amateur design site; we're happy to give people the benefit of the doubt and to read cards the way they're meant to work. And I'm also not saying you have to have 100% rules knowledge to design cards - that's an impossible bar to set.
But I would say that the rules and guidelines in Magic are generally there for very good reasons. And the old creative maxim is true when it says you need to understand why the box is there before you can think outside it; practice doing things within the form before trying to break the mould.
As an alternative, how about simply
> Target creature you control fights another target creature, and then fights a third target creature.