Sik Zeoi 色罪: Recent Activity
| Sik Zeoi 色罪: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Sik Zeoi 色罪: (Generated at 2025-09-03 17:21:31)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Well they do work consistently. It's just not to your personal taste or OCDness.
Do you really have a reason to your argument? Do all flashback cards work 'identically'? Do all mana work identically?
"they are different cards. why should they all work identically?" Because that's the point of using a keyword
Eh, worth a try. It just feels like fiddly words where a much simpler card will fill the same niche.
most importantly, that's the nature of the mechanic that removes text. that is, the original effect must have the word included before it can be removed.
FYI WotC still makes cards that care about coloredness.
Can censor ever be truly interesting? Yes? Maybe? e.g. tapped-ness; removing keyword; duration.
Mmm, the "Oh hey, we can have the special cost be the bad mode" is reserved for the second-run of a mechanic, where they're stretching it. It's certainly a thing, though.
I'd personally have thought:
"Creatures you control get +1/+1 UEOT. Censor 'you control'"
But it's a pretty similar point.
It feels fiddly for a space that is already played in by other mechanics. I don't want to mention kicker (because everything is kicker); but this is a classic "kick for better effect" card.
Can you ever censor anything other than a restraining clause? Can censor ever be truly interesting?
The issues with censor right now:
The last point could be fixed here by e. g. going:
> "White creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
"
Censor "white" -
But that still addresses only one-and-a-half of the points.
Finally this can be a french vanilla... since Baneblade Knight already shows menace is a part of this set.
Two-card cycle?
Yeah, the problem here is that the rules are unintuitive. You create a new land type that is the name and land type of a new basic land and you want that land type not to be a basic land type despite doing everything in your power to create the impression that it is.
Creating this card without making Vacuum a basic land type outright removes any intuitive implicit way for players to define what a basic land type is.
As a custom card designer it's better to bite the bullet and create a basic land type and rely on the fact that you don't interact with the full card pool than creating a solution that realistically cannot be chosen. Either way you are going down a path WotC is avoiding and at least just creating a new basic land type is something they might do by simply abandoning the old cards towards a wording of "Choose a basic land type other than Vaccum" etc.
For reference on how confusing Vacuum actually will be: I still regularlymeet people who think Waste is a basic land type despite Waste not even being a land type.
Honestly it would be better to create a new wording and rules for effects like Convincing Image than the other way around - and the interaction with a sixth basic land type is not necessarily a problem even on most cards that let you make a choice.
Vacuum is a new land type with special rules: any land that becomes a Vacuum has the ability to generate
.
This card is basic in that you can have as many of them in a deck. But Vacuum is not a basic land type, so it would not affect domain spells, and you can't choose it as a basic land type, as in Convincing Mirage.
Sik Zeoi will have Vacuum matters cards.
Protection cycle
Protection cycle