Homelands Restored: Recent Activity
| Homelands Restored: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recent updates to Homelands Restored: (Generated at 2025-08-07 17:38:05)
| Homelands Restored: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recent updates to Homelands Restored: (Generated at 2025-08-07 17:38:05)
I really like giving the option for the opponent to shoot themselves in the foot. But that's been blind-siding me to some of the problem with Giant Albatross. It's already a funky card before you get to the "if your opponent is willing to pay 2 life..." part. It didn't need to get any weirder.
So, I'm pulling the clause and reading it as a detriment. Now killing an albatross results in the death of your creature and the loss of 2 life. Which is probably fine for game balance reasons. This could have been a 1/1 flying deathtoucher after all.
Your first suggestion makes more sense than the way this is currently written, Dude. I'm editing to say that. Though, your first version doesn't stack like you think it does. The opponent just keeps choosing the same creature. Honestly, though, I'm cool with that. I just like the idea of a creature that says "Not everything can block".
An alternative alternative. This card could say "...the defender chooses target untapped creature they control..." I'm not sure if adding targeting restrictions adds value here? Or does that just make it that much more confusing for common?
I'm reading this as a terrible way to say all creatures can't block, which I doubt is what you mean. I think a much cleaner way to accomplish basically the same thing is "When ~ attacks, defending player chooses a creature they control. That creature can't block this turn." It even stacks that way! I'd prefer "... target creature can't block," which is pretty common in red and prevents the opponent from just choosing tapped creatures or whatever to not block.
Original Card
I needed a 2 cost solid playable creature that messed with blocking and happened to be a Dwarf. I ended up with this. Personally, I think the ability is neat. My only regret is that it doesn't do anything in multiples. Ah well. I suppose if the Dwarf deck was too evasive, there wouldn't be much use for Dwarven Pony.
Originally, I dropped the casting cost to
. I kind of goofed with my own skeleton, however, and ended up with three red commons between Dwarven Trader and Celerity. Since Celerity is an original card, you'd think I'd change that... but Aliban's Tower casting cost originally was 
, so it didn't seem like such a big deal to revert to that and increase the bonus by +1/+1. Besides, I didn't like this being strictly worse than Titan's Strength anyway.
I agree, it almost certainly wants to target the player as well. And ideally it would follow the further constraints of allowing the damage to sent 6 to either, but not targeting something not damaged.
Could it be, "Ripened Fireshot deals 6 damage to target creature or target player, or 6 damage divided as you choose between target player and target creature they control"? The current wording is 24 words including reminder text, and spelling out all three options like that is 26 words.
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to run the targeting. Here's a weird kicker: If this targets the creature and the player, and the creature is removed, you can now deal 6 to the player. Sounds like a cute way to deal 6 damage to an opponent in combination with Serrated Arrows, say. I guess there's nothing wrong with that... it's just weird. I'll probably switch over to double targets soon. It's probably better to eliminate the more frustrating option.
@Alex: I completely forgot about Liquid Fire! But, then, I guess I had a good reason to. Considering the fact that direct damage in Odyssey was at an all time low, and MaGo's Oracle text is currently a strained monstrosity, I'd say pre-printing it like this is an acceptable choice.
I was going to recommend targeting the controller anyway, so that the spell doesn't fizzle if the creature is removed in response, like how the recent Commands were templated. "~ deals 6 damage divided as you choose between target player and target creature that player controls. (Your reminder text.)"
Agh! Liquid fire's text is horrible but I can't think of much better.
I wonder if "Divided as you choose between target player and/or target creature that player controls" would work (assuming it's ok for a new card to choose to target both). But I'm not sure that works if you don't choose both targets.
Or something like "Deals up to 6 damage to target creature and the remainder to its controller" although that doesn't fix the timing issue.
It's Liquid Fire! Except the "reminder" text here is false for that card. (The reminder text would be accurate if this targeted the player too, bizarrely, as The Great MaGo elaborates in the explanation for Liquid Fire's rules text.)
Original Card.
Originally, I was going to give the large direct damage spell to Lightning Blast and call it a day. But the skeleton wanted something more expensive, so I cooked up this number.
It's possible this should cost
. It really depends on how red is performing in Limited, I suppose.
I started writing the flavor text as a joke that started with "What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Roast on medium..." But then I realized that Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar is criminally underrepresented on Magic flavor. The Homunculi/Wizard pair makes more sense with the card anyway. Did you know Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar is the Lord of the Pit's official cook? True story, bro.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that rare round 2 Strip Mine is something I want to avoid, even if it is fair. It's never fun. Editing to Diabolic Edict, I suppose. I've been thinking of fancy discard spells that could cost
... but most of them contain too much text to be reasonable here.
You could just turn it into a straight Diabolic Edict. But leaving it as it is and just keeping an eye on it seems reasonable.
I'm just going to have to keep an eye on this one. I'd say "I could scale it back to just creatures and artifacts" but that looks weird somehow. Black can make you sacrifice creatures, or creatures/artifacts/lands, but not creatures/artifacts? How odd.
They're likely to end up uncommon anyway. Whether or not they're fair for basic, there's no real reason why they can't be uncommons, so I'm moving them there.
Heh, cute. Thank you dude. I'll edit shortly.
" on each of one or two target creatures"? Or do they have to share if I pick two?
Hm, there's Travel Preparations and Reap What Is Sown, but yes, that simplest form hasn't been printed yet. Nice.
This one seems rather fun and not overpowered.