Homelands Restored: Recent Activity
| Homelands Restored: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recent updates to Homelands Restored: (Generated at 2025-06-20 23:29:39)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
piper perri
Another options if this proves tooo powerful. I could make the token an X/2. I know that doesn't sound like much, but first strike, direct damage, and all these toughness matters things in the set might help balance the card in the end.
Original Card
I need a creature that cost 4 and both fed into the 'lands in your graveyard' theme, as well as taking advantage of that theme. I made it a wall because... well, why not. The set could use another wall for the anti-wall stuff to make sense with, and being able to attack with this creature would have made it more nuts. As it stands, I probably should have made this a 1/3... but I'm willing to playtest as is.
Me too. But if Falkenrath Reaver exists, then I have to assume that 'uncommon with common stats, plus upside' is just a little down the road.
Really? This (correctly) reads like niche upside to me, with the occasional really high upside. Plus I'm still suspicious of red bears
Original card.
Red's kind of a hodgpodge of ideas, with no real direction. Ah well. Mostly, I'm making sure that minor themes that do exist are supported. The dwarves seem to like to put land in the graveyard. Let's help that out, and maybe tomorrow I'll make an uncommon that keys off of it.
This isn't a drawback. But it kind of reads like one. I tried 2/1, and I know that was good enough, but I could just imagine people thinking that this card would be worse than a 2/1 with trinket text. 1/3 is kind of nice. And that extra toughness helps keep the card around so you can sacrifice a land to trade with a 2/2 and you don't have to throw away your creature too. But I didn't want the card to be a defensive rattlesnake.
So 2/2 it is. Blame power creep. I always thought card with 'drawbacks' should be overpowered, though, because otherwise they just look like a waste of cardboard.
Original card. I really want to work on a new project around here, but I should finish my old project first. Uh huh, uh huh.
This card was already in the file, I just hadn't officially made it yet. The set needed something to turn on Dwarven Pony. I mean, no, it didn't really. I just don't like to see narrow answer cards without other cards that can help make it not so narrow.
Original card Continuing the uncommon red mechanic I started working on from Koskun Keep Rampartier.
I suppose a mechanical identity isn't really anything unless I have some build around me cards, though. Will have to brainstorm something. I presume it's a little too awkward to have a mechanic be 'Bloodthirst, but requiring two damage.'
I like the name "Rampartier" :)
Original card.
Originally, I planned to make a bunch of booby trap cards that deal damage when they die. I finally got around to playing Shadows Over Innistrad, though, and found out that the devil tokens beat me to the punch. How random.
So I'm going to try a bit of damage coming and going instead, to put a little distance in there. The theme comes from a combination of Orcish Mining and Ironclaw Curse (which will be dealing damage shortly). I suppose that means these cards should be Orcs... but meh. Set could use more Minotaurs.
Also, there's no such word as 'rampartier', so I wouldn't suggest using it in conversation. ;) I thought about calling this card a 'Bull's Eye Bowman'... but couldn't figure out if that name sounded like an insult to a minotaur?
Oh, +x/-x as a mechanical representation of "Is actually on fire" is fine. But this isn't quite that.
I think this is currently just outside red's pie, it sometimes gets it on hybrid cards, but not usually otherwise. But the idea keeps coming back round, to me, it feels like an appropriate effect to bring into red. Maybe instead of saying "red is damage, black is toughness decreasing", say "red is damage and toughness decreasing, black is P/T decreasing".
Alternatively, give one colour "decrease toughness" and one "make toughness 1"?
I could, and I thought of it (Fatal Attraction also helps your argument.) I still might. Mostly, this is me running an idea up a flagpole and seeing how people react.
That said, Immolation is mostly just used like a Shock, but I always felt it was an elegant card. This isn't that. I only brought that card up as a reminder that this wasn't always such a weird idea.
Also, I should point out that this is removal that can hit things that red removal normally does not. Technically, anti-regeneration clauses pop up on red instants/sorceries often enough, but the extra text is a hassle. This also kills indestructible. Whether that's appropriate or not, though, is up for debate.
A weird aside: Toughness matters is a theme of this set. So, yeah, I do suppose there are occasions when you would use this to reduce toughness, but not to kill a creature. It could be shutting off an effect.
But if -0/-2 is too odd, I can just change it to damage. It doesn't seem that way to me, but this isn't a personal project.
This is normally going to be used like a Shock anyway, so why not just make it deal damage to the enchanted creature when it ETBs, a la Earthbind?
True. But red's a color that could use more mechanics, and this is a mechanic that black doesn't use. Plus no one seems to have a problem with red getting +1/-1. Seems like this is less of an issue of 'what does red do?', and more of 'what could red do?' I'm sure many players would disagree with me, though.
Tht's kinda the major difference between black and red though. Black saps, red zaps.
Okie doke. I needed to move a couple cards from uncommon to common, and both Orcish Mining and Ironclaw Curse made the most sense. The curse was originally common anyway, it just seemed weird enough to be an uncommon, so it ended up there. But now that it's officially a common, I got rid of the pesky 'can't block if its power is equal to X while opponent's power is equal to Y' line. Now it just can't block. Nice and simple.
Also, this originally gave -0/-1, which I bumped to -1/-1. But the more I thought of it, the more I liked -0/-2. In theory -0/-X is a black ability, but black never uses it. And toughness reduction feels very red. It's like a permanent form of direct damage. I'm starting to think -0/-X should be on many more red cards...
Okay, some changes. I'm dropping this to common for a number of different reasons. But the two big ones are that LD at common is useful for a set to have, and I need to give red an identity, and none of the current red commons jump out at me. Orcish Mining, however, has a mechanic I can keep repeating: When I die, I hurt you. The plan is to have a bunch of booby traps in play that players need to tiptoe around.
In the process, I figured I could make this card simpler. So no more 'remove a counter on the upkeep.' That makes this card less likely to blow up, so I reduced the number of depletion counters to two. Also, the enchantment now triggers when it goes to the graveyard in any way. That's so it matches the rest of the cards coming down the line. But I do like how this card has a sort of 'Demystify-insurance'. Also a good reason to pack Demystifies in the same deck.
Like I mentioned on Celerity, this card needs to move because I'm switching a couple uncommons into common. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a good uncommon. Guess we'll have to wait and see if this sticks.
Unfortunately, sensible or not, the needs of the set is making me bump this card to uncommon. It probably doesn't belong there, so I can't say this card is long for this set...
Considering what I have to work with, I guess I got:
- Minotaur tribal
- Dwarf Tribal
- Plays well with first strike
- Power matters (though, I'm pretty sure I don't want to do this.)
I don't know... I'm sure I could spin a mechanic off the trader, build around haste, or build around the instant. But then I'd be building a mechanic around one card, and that seems weird. Let's see how well I can push 'plays well with first strike'.