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 15:54:51)
Um. So I get that you're having this as a mirror to planeswalkers. But... if the caster likes the ability; why would the choose to ever make an attack that might be blocked? Which renders them completely safe except to direct-damage decks. Not impossible to balance around, but annoying.
More difficult to balance around - this is both quite a nice utility creature, and a 7/1 smash-to-the-face. And it seems like that's going to apply to all of them; if their ability is usable more than once, they are also a powerful beatstick. Which means they can only exist up in the realms of high casting cost; which means the abilities are either really strong, or completely irrelevant.
Mechanically, as SI points out, they can be implemented as creatures that gain -1/-1 counters. Is this different enough to warrant a whole new type? Personally, I'd say no. But then, I also think that about planeswalkers.
Technically no, since Nemeses would be losing their counters rather than gaining -1/-1 counters. I see the point you're making though, but they weren't intended to exist in a way with with -1/-1 counters (like, they shouldn't be destroyed by something that can destroy something with -1/-1 counters on it).
Instead, references should refer to their counter type, preferably based on amounts (e.g. Nemeses with two or fewer loyalty (or other name) counters gain deathtouch, Exile target Nemesis with five or more counters, when ETBs, put two counters on each Nemesis you control, or Move all counters from one target Nemesis to another target Nemesis).
I viewed these as purely aggressive antagonistic entities, something that must try and destroy and cause harm, which is why I never thought to have them as something that could block. Nemeses can use a and attack in the same turn. Nemeses are clever enough to alter the state of the world around them to make their situation better.
So they are like creatures that are dealt damage in the form of -1/-1 counters that can't block?
Feels like thematically this would be a group of creatures.
Nemeses don't have a toughness. Nemesis can attack as if they were creatures, dealing damage equal to their loyalty (would probably actually use a different word). Damage dealt to a Nemesis is removed from their loyalty (again, would probably choose a different name)
The active player (usually the player who cast this spell, since it is a sorcery) normally has the first priority, and then the priority will be in the order of the other players.
(In a game using the shared team turns option, your entire team gets to decide; if your team cannot come to an agreement, the rightmost player must make this decision.)
The spell cast in this way won't remain in exile because casting any will be move into the stack instead.
Yeah, only being allowed to do it during your turn, and once a turn, is a sensible safety valve there.
But why would you want a safety valve? Cast this. Watch as everything goes crazy and everyone tries to cast all of the instants at once :)
Yeah, you can see the subclause on Share the Spoils that makes all the difference.
This is basically a riff on Share the Spoils
The spells cast normally and go to the graveyard unless you specify otherwise, so that's fine. The bigger issue is priority fights, where it's confusing about who can cast instants
@Vitenka, yeah I didn't know about that/how to word it in so that the spells cast work normally.
Multiplayer was the main intent, though it could exist fine in two-player too I think.
I was specifically thinking about multiplayer where a card can just sit there accessible to multiple players and everyone can see all the answer cards and reset buttons floating around.
If the spell cast that way remains in exile; it would be horrible, but I don't think that was the intent?
It's sure an interesting wheel of fortune variant. Kind of swapping hands but not really.
...oh my gawsh. This in multiplayer. The river would be ridiculous!
Imagine this exiling a counterspell.
I'm with Tahazzar, but I'd rather see ability counters with the +1/+1 counters than their suggested line of text (though ability word counters weren't official when this was made).
Hello, there, MDFCs.
Note on the DFC proxy drafting: I found it easiest to just draft placeholder cards that can be exchanged for set aside DFCs. In a way it is much easier than the way WotC has to handle things.
I agree that "Pouncing Kavu"-style upgrades are better solved with kicker or renown-style cards.
Technically you could have the same card for
/
as the faces of a MDFC, but hybrid is still the preferable tool. Same here.
The Gambit deck would generally be much smaller than a full deck. I imagine shuffling would be quite a bit faster.
I know it's been commented on that the shuffle is a mechanical downside (which it is, shuffling is slow and annoying) - but it's also a nice outlet for people to somewhat control the randomness. Don't like the gambit available to you this turn? Gambit something else an see what you can shuffle up.
Removed separate Gambit cost.
The risk of adding a land to your gambits is meant to be a built-in drawback/balancing method.
Paying mana for the cards you play always helps with balance. :)
I'm not certain the gambit cost is a good idea. It adds a whole line to the already long reminder text. Heaving that valve for balance is nice, but the word count currently is the bigger issue.
The shuffling is an issue here, especially since the "put on bottom" part of the resolution could help you get o top of the chaos, but gets undone easily. Unfortunately I see no easy solution right now.
Hmmm. Ok, this is now very different. Let's see - you only ever get to cast your gambits twice at most. It gambits a random card too, that's gonna be odd. Ending up with a land in the gambit deck is a dead gambit, which will be annoying.
And you do now have to pay to cast it. So this is now kind of like a less good variation on flashback - in that you don't get to choose what you're getting back each turn. But it's also pseudo card-draw, since you also get to ((at some point) cast the top card of your deck, if you didn't overload on it..
Ok, this is pleasingly different from other mechanics; and has a real "Ok, let's just throw stuff and see what happens!" kind of randomness, which is pleasing. Not so much "I have planned for every outcome" gambit, more of a "Bask in my glorious chaos!" gambit. So yeah, I like it. But I'm a small demographic :) Whether the card advantage (and it's a good advantage! This is, what, removal-twice-and-cantrip?) is going to outweigh the "Oh noes! Randomness!" feel, and make those boring other demongraphics choke it down, I don't know.
There's certainly tuning arguments to be made for the costs. But they're probably in the right ballpark here; and it'd need testing to see whether it needs to go up or down a bit.
I significantly changed the mechanic based on a fusion of my own thought process and SecretInfiltrator's feedback. As written, it was definitely not a good idea previously; it may still not be.