Cards With No Home: Recent Activity
| Cards With No Home: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Other non-themed cardsets | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Cards With No Home: (Generated at 2025-05-01 15:54:49)
So if you make me tuck four cards, I then draw sixteen cards?
If you don't want that I'd re-word the end of the effect as:
Trying to make a discard spell relevant for commander. So you get to Vendilion Clique each player, including yourself but your hand's are revealed. Additionally, in a 4 player game, you could take 4 cards from one player and none from the others.
Eh - it's "Play a creature card with CMC1 (or 0 I guess)". Which late-game is going to be nowhere near as good as drawing a card, unless that's the one thing in your deck to complete your combo. It's certainly hard to price as a mechanic on arbitrary bodies though. The horrid potential of "Turn 4? I play my cmc4-lead creature, it searches into play my cmc3 creature, which gets me 2 and 1 as well. 10-ish power" is... well, rather strong.
So this is better than putting the card in hand. Which makes this better than "draw a card", which makes the whole card better than Elvish Visionary.
Name has since been taken: Pack Leader
Creature cascade?
you must remove as many loyalty counters as possible
I find it interesting comparing this to the obviously inferior Safewright Quest. That's an admittedly inferior card. So much so that it got quasi-obsoleted by Flower. This is still seems considerably more powerful than Flower//Flourish, though.
As for whether that's fair, or fair on a common, I'll leave to other people.
Plainscycling and Forestcycling for one mana alone is worth it without a land attached, I think.
Well, flavour is nemesis... Wait. Why is your nemesis working for you? Or is it your opponents nemesis? In which case why are there more than one? Or a nemesis of the planeswalkers they might or might not play? In which case isn't that just one of the other planeswalkers?
I dunno. I guess the real question for "Is this worth making a new type" isn't "Can this be done with an existing type" (Because of course it can. All lands could have been 0-cost artifacts with a restrictionon playing two a turn. Enchantments are just poly-artifacts. Aura are a special case of equipment, nd sorcery are just instants you can only cast in your main phase. ... both ears and the tail.) - but rather whether there's enough interesting designs to keep it around for future sets. Since you'll have to pay the rules-baggage forever.
I think, the best way to go with this, is to find a flavor-execution for this and reconsider the parts of the design, questioning how you would do that top-down.
Planeswalkers are mechanically different in that they can be attacked, but also thematically different in what they represent - they represent allies that are more comparable to the player - which is why they come with their own "life total" and own "spells". The new card type is only justified through both of these.
We could have gotten legendary creature cards to represent planeswalkers or we could have gotten structures to represent attackable permanent types that track their "health" in counters. Only in bringing the two together planeswalkers got a jump on those other executions IMO.
Your response to -1/-1 counters is misleading. Could do the inverse and start the creature with +1/+1 counters instead, comparable to the phantom ability. Compare this side-by-side with a creature variant that uses +1/+1 counters, maybe even a special symbol for removing +1/+1 counters to activate an ability only once a turn etc. - which I consider independently to be an interesting design space.
Planeswalkers are different from other types, though. Planeswalkers can be attacked and can be damaged, and are damaged in a different way than creatures are. However, loyalty abilities can be on any permanent (although only planeswalkers will die due to zero loyalty counters as a state-based action) (and I did have some designs that have loyalty abilities on non-planeswalkers, although such a thing will not be common). Planeswalkers are significant to be their own type it makes sense, I think.
This card is different, though. A different word than "loyalty" would be worthless, I think. It is damaged like a planeswalker and attacks like a creature, which is strange. I still think probably is not necessary to be its own type, and then can avoid to deal with the rules that would be required to handle such a thing, too.
It can be implemented as creatures with -1/-1 counters. Another way would be to be both a creature and a planeswalker, and also indestructible, with abilities that it cannot block and cannot be attacked (although maybe it should be attacked anyways, due to the balance; maybe it should also be allowed to block).