Cards With No Home
Cards With No Home by Alex
2900 cards in Multiverse
696 with no rarity, 296 commons, 684 uncommons,
926 rares, 290 mythics, 4 basics, 4 tokens
73 colourless, 1 colourless blue, 1 token black, 1 token red, 1 token artifact, 363 white, 411 blue, 279 black, 316 red,
267 green, 652 multicolour, 83 hybrid, 30 split, 203 artifact, 215 land, 2 scheme, 2 plane
6506 comments total
Cards that don't fit into our actual themed sets. Open to all: throw your random ideas in here, or come along for some random ideas for your set.
| Cards With No Home: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Other non-themed cardsets | Skeleton |
Cardset comments (23) | Add a comment on this cardset
Recently active cards: (all recent activity)
,
, Choose two target tokens: Create a token that's a copy of one of the chosen tokens. Sacrifice the new token unless the chosen tokens share a type or you pay 
. Then sacrifice the other chosen token.
: Add 
. You can't spend this mana to cast nonartifact spells. Put a loyalty counter on target permanent you control.Venser's spark could not save Karn from the phyrexians twice.
Green and red creatures strong (strong creatures have are always at least 4/4 regardless of any amount of -1/-1 they have).
White and blue creatures are weak (Weak creatures are always 1/1 regardless of any amount of +1/+1 they have).
White and blue creatures are weak (Weak creatures are always 1/1 regardless of any amount of +1/+1 they have).
As long as you control three or more white creatures with vigilance, red and black creatures that enter under your control enter with a vigilance counter.
As long as you control three or more black or red creatures with menace, white creatures that enter under your control enter with a menace counter.
As long as you control three or more black or red creatures with menace, white creatures that enter under your control enter with a menace counter.
Recent comments: (all recent activity)
See other cardsets
The idea is that if the tokens share a type, it costs 1 to transmute them. But if they don't share a type it costs 3.
Isn't this just?
,
,sacrifice a token: Create a copy of target token
Or is it intended to not need a sacrifice if the second chosen token is controlled by someone else?
Oh my god that got complicated quickly. Yucky wording. I just want to turn tokens into other tokens...
That's a fair criticism.
Boon of Emrakul
Red or green creatures will get +3 power, but if they're toughness is greater than four, it may go down to four, but not below four.
White or blue creatures will have their toughness reduced to 0 and die.
Watchwolf- Yeah, this card breaks in conflict with itself.
How do these interact with Boon of Emrakul?
How do these interact with Watchwolf?
I like the alternate timeline concept. The flavor text communicates the idea in a pretty sloppy way.
On further reflection, I just remembered that even improving the card like that we end up with a less versatile Concerted Effort that requires more creatures to work and synergizes with only two rather than eight keywords.
I feel I already commented on a card very similar to this. A card that does nothing until you have your fourth creature is already quite hampered, but this one also requires you to play some sort of keyword tribal... except getting the keyword counter itself is not useful if you actually go all-in on the keyword.
You have to arrange not only for your fourth creature, but for the other three creatures all to belong to subset A of your creatures, but this fourth one doesn't belong to subset A. That is not the "interesting decision making"-kind of tension, that's "the card doesn't get to be useful a lot of times because the stars didn't align"-kind of tension.
Now all that said, I also look at the reward you get here, and while entering with counters and having a static ability granting keywords are different, they are similar enough (and have pros and cons balancing each other out) that the following question might be appropriate: Wouldn't
be about an appropriate cost for "All creatures you control have vigilance and menace"? Does the pay-off this provides really need hoops?
At the very least... would it be so bad if you just outright removed every mention 0f color from this card's rules text?
On a more technical note: static abilities and timestamps and dependency might be confusing on this effect that grants the keyword the condition is looking for... Would this be better as a triggered ability?
Compare:
It feels weird to have this set of abilities for a creature half that is prevented both from attacking and blocking by the mechanic.
If the creature was applied for the untapped state you could at least block with it, maybe use vigilance to attack with it.
That aside this particular design doesn't go quite far enough in making the 'decision to tap' interesting enough. There is not zero synergy between the halves. In a weird way though the synergy lies in the creature-half undoing the life loss inflicted by the artifact half i. e. the card becomes less appropriate for black.
Maybe it would be more interesting and create a modicum of tension and decision-making to trigger on upkeep rather than end step? That way not waiting until the last moment with the artifact activation is rewarded in a similar way addendum works.