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 2025-05-04 12:43:18)
Templating fix
Templating: If you're saying "nonland" then you can say "cast" rather than "play". The rest looks like it's all fine though.
...On the other hand, it's actually very similar to Chandra, Pyromaster's middle ability (just more cards and no need to pay the mana costs), so you can probably alternatively say "This turn, you may cast any nonland cards exiled this way without paying their mana costs."
Created for the Goblin Artisans Colour Chain design challenge.
Interesting. Ignoring the unearth cost for the moment, this is already fair: a 1/1 flash flyer costs about 2 mana, and so does a cantrip creature (bizarrely, both examples are green: Scryb Ranger, Elvish Visionary). So combining them into a 3-mana creature sounds fine.
Adding unearth is a nice touch on an ETB creature, but doesn't have to drive the price up much. So overall, this seems entirely appropriately costed. Good job :)
It's interesting to compare this to Mulldrifter. This gives you the same return on investment as Mulldrifter (two cards and two flying power), for 3+4 mana rather than 5, but this has to die for you to get the second half of it. But Mulldrifter is Ann exceptionally strong card!
Fixed the mana symbols in the unearth cost.
Made the "f" in "flying" lower case. Formatting nitpick.
I have no idea how to cost this stupid thing, or if it should have flash. Any help would be appreciated.
A very specific kind of counterspell. I love it :)
Very creative! It reminds me of Brand.
For what it's worth, Istvan is right that dealing one damage is still less complicated than giving a creature +1/+0. I guess there's a hierarchy of complicated abilities in combat.
I meant it screws with combat math. Any one of your creatures could suddenly be dealt more damage than expected, so you have evaluate every combination of pings. That's way more complex than should occur regularly.
Not necessarily, pinging can clear the board of X/1s while tapping cannot. I see what you're saying, but keeping track of damage is a pretty necessary aspect of the game. I honestly think this could be
, although it would admittedly skew the Limited environment a little bit. Perhaps in an Eldrazi set.
Tapping leads to a lot less complex board states than pinging.
Maybe they did skew away from reliable tapping towards repeatable-but-narrower tapping, but tapping is still allowed occasionally?
Hmm... I kind of thought the tappers were phased out, but I guess not. Avacynian Priest popped up in Innistrad. Scars had Blinding Souleater (and Tumble Magnet). And while Court Street Denizen, Haazda Snare Squad and Master of Diversion aren't reliable, they are repeatable, which I guess is the point. (though, interestingly, you don't use those cards defensively.)
I guess I was expecting to see Blinding Mage in every block, and when I didn't, I assumed the mechanic was gone. Funny that.
I think tapping has been fine at common. Look at Gideon's Lawkeeper and Blinding Mage. I may be missing something? But I think that's because it doesn't mean you have to work things out in advance, you can think "how do I attack", and then get something tapped, and then work out "how do I attack" again, and it almost always is "opponent taps your biggest creature". Whereas something that pings or pumps means you have to consider a lot more possibilities "I can block with this and that... no, wait, he could do that, ok, I could..."
That said, there are effects which appear at common but only at higher costs (large creatures, say). So there might be a price where ping is useful to some decks, but doesn't reduce draft to "who can get the most pingers and win". But I'm no good at development, so I don't know what that mana cost should be.
I was looking at Ephara's Warden, and two things occurred to me:
1). Wizards just broke their "No continuous effects that can muck up the decision of whether or not someone should attack at common, and
2). They did it by making the card useful in limited, but expensive (This card makes the Homelands card Aysen Bureaucrats look good.)
Which, I guess means that all the cards that weren't allowed at common for the same reason (Samite Healer, Prodigal Pyromancer, Silvergill Douser), as long as those cards are 'overcosted' (or, to be more precise, they were always fine at common. The community just couldn't accept the fact that they were too cheap, so, instead of being moved to their proper cost, they were temporarily bumped.)
So, that said, I wonder how expensive/cheap a card needs to be to be NWO. Is this acceptable? Would it need to cost
instead, before I could get this effect?
[shrug] I'd comment that we should be careful comparing cards to High Tide, what with it being the centerpiece of a number of incredibly powerful decks. That said, I'm not sure if the fault was High Tide, or cards like Palinchron and Turnabout that abused High Tide. [/shrug]
Steam Bath?
Seems rather more expensive than I'd expect for two colours' worth of High Tide. Also seems dubious for rare, unless that's because it's so narrow.
Heh. Well, I've always thought that "when I've just done X and Y" I'll make a bigger push to try to publicise Multiverse. X and Y vary over time, of course :P but one of the perennial problems is that on Heroku's free and lowest paid tiers, the performance is still pretty horrible. I keep meaning to get around to trying hosting the site myself for a bit and see if I can get the performance any better.
I tend to reckon that if Multiverse struggles to cope with the number of users we have at the moment, it's not really ready for a massive marketing push. (Of course, that's not to say keep it secret - by all means mention it in forums and to friends, keep people coming in. But I'm not going to be making a series of Reddit posts or similar just yet.)
I've seen it "Ah heck, let's just do it; rules say you can only run four of a named card, rules don't care if some of them have different rules on" Which seems a very 'un' approach to it. I can see it being a cycle of five cards in an un-set, that combo well together, for example :)
I've never seen it approached at all.