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 14:43:36)
Hm, a planeswalker for a red aggro creature deck. Seems reasonable, given that original Chandra was control, Zendikar Chandra was just odd, and modern Chandra is moderately controlly as well (though she's pretty flexible).
Niiiice :) Exciting, powerful, and yet probably not overpowered. +3 may be a little much, but you're right that "Draw a card" can be a + ability on a 6-mana gold PW.
Hmm, Disentomb could probably be -1 on a 3-mana mythic. It's been a repeatable effect on a common before (Undertaker), so I think -1 would be fine. Rise from the Grave feels a bit underpowered as an ultimate as well, although you're right to be cautious about the ultimate on a 3-mana PW.
Ok, no problem, thanks for working on it :)
Yep, sorry about that - a bug for cards moved out of a cardset that's since been deleted. Now fixed. My apologies.
Yow, sorry about the downtime. Turns out card history got confused with a card moved out of a deleted cardset. Now fixed, hopefully.
I moved all my cards to this set, but now I can't go to the edit page for any of them. Some kind of bug I guess?
Heh; the Phantasmal Image treatment on Body Double. Makes sense.
Could be given a very resonant flavour, something like a literal Ghost of the Past or that kind of thing. Definitely printable as an expansion's variation-on-Clone.
Note that Clones are usually 0/0, not */*.
Well, nobody has come out and said "that's a gross violation of the rules!", so I'm going to class that as a win :)
Ah, sorry I didn't see that interaction. The current version may be fair if this + token producer + emrakul + flicker is a combo -- a four card combo is generally ok. I meant that you could instead use a card that was the same as the token (eg. llanowar elves for the tokens from llanowar mentor, the same card if you make a token copy of something, etc), which wouldn't usually matter, but would fulfil the "tokens don't act as tokens" idea. Although I don't think my rules wording was quite right (is there no easy way to let grizzly bears substitute for an unnamed 2/2 token?)
It still wouldn't be able to stop you from getting Emrakul from the sideboard to represent a 0/1 Eldrazi Spawn token, then using Cloudshift to bring its more natural stats back.
Come to think of it, you might just be able to get away with "If a token would enter the battlefield under your control, you may instead put a card from outside the game that has the same abilities and properties..." OK, that'd be too confusing, but I think it might just work under the rules... :)
That's better, but if people are going to be confused, I expect people to still think the opponent gets those effects. To be unambiguous, it would alas have to be three symmetrical effects, or be reworded somehow...
I guess you could replace "damage to target player" with "damage to each opponent", "three +1/+1 counters on target creature" with "a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control", "counter target spell" with "counter all other spells"... Yeah, it's probably doable.
Personally, I'd aim to remove targeting from this card completely so there's never any confusion. That would change what the options were, granted, but it isn't like those options is tied to anything mechanic or flavor...
Well, it's pretty clear "Opponent chooses one of {good things}" that it's either a stupidass broken pointless card, or the good things are stuff you get :)
But yeah, I only got it from context, not rules knowledge.
I didn't realize that you still chose targets. Maybe make reminder text that says (You choose the targets.)?
Hmm. Yeah, I'm not sure I'd guess that the opponent chooses the mode but then you choose the targets. I think you probably are right, but a bunch of players would probably get rather confused by it.
That said, I do like this idea; it's pretty clever.
Oh yeah, I didn't even notice that. I think I subconsciously thought of the "plague of beasts" as a plague of bears, not elephants, but the bible's really vague on the subject -- I think the word used is something like "animal", and it's not even clear whether it's talking about flies or larger animals.
I'd forgotten magic tradition would put beasts at 3/3. I agree increasing the cost makes sense, but I was hoping for lots of beasts more than big beasts...
Oh, you're right, I hadn't noticed there was something so similar.
I don't know it doesn't feel right creating 2/2 beasts. Beast tokens are supposed to be 3/3 which I suppose you could do by upping the cost a little
or 
isn't that much harder for a dedicated green deck to produce.
Reminds me of Domestication, or Threads of Disloyalty.