This Is Draft
This Is Draft by ChargingBadger
56 cards in Multiverse
55 commons, 1 rare
11 white, 10 blue, 10 black,
10 red, 10 green, 5 artifact
12 comments total
A set I am making to try to make awesome for limited.
| This Is Draft: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recently active cards: (all recent activity)
When White Lotus enters the battlefield, sacrifice a land.
: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
Sacrifice a creature: Draw cards equal to the sacrificed creature's power. Gain life equal to its toughness.
Recent comments: (all recent activity)
See other cardsets
Or any opponent with a mono-colored deck...
@Vitenka
It reads "creatures that share a color AND a controller", so that idea wouldn't work. But any opponent with a 5-colour creature is pretty screwed.
It looks like ChargingBadger is ignoring rarity in this set.
Wow, significantly nastier wild-colour-hate than has been seen before.
And indeed, forget shutting down an opponents board - enchant your own 5-colour creature and shut down the whole of a multi-player game.
Suggest making it "unless they pay
" at least for the 'share a colour' bit. Shutting down the enchanted creature unconditionally is probably fine though.
Um? A common that shuts down quite possibly your opponent's entire board?
fixed - removed clause
Yes. If a spell's target is invalid, the whole spell is countered. Even without a clause like this card has. Spells generally shouldn't have a clause like this card has because we want new players to come to understand that if a spell's target is invalid, the whole spell is countered.
I mentioned in my first comment that regenerating enchantments (Reknit) or indestructible enchantments (Heliod, God of the Sun) are the only situations where the "If an enchantment is destroyed this way" clause would make any difference at all. And I really don't think it's worth the confusion and controversy even if the set happens to have one or other of those as a big theme.
I thought if a spells target was invalid, the spell was countered?
It does also add that special case for indestructible, though.
No, no, no, it doesn't do that. This is setting new rules for this one card, not reminder text. This is the opposite of teaching players that that's what happens: this teaches players to think that that doesn't normally happen because "otherwise why would the card say that in this case and not in any other case?"
It does add clarity to a two-clause spell that if the first clause fails (target invalid) so does the second clause.
Which, frankly, does need explaining on a common. (Or, you know, better; don't put that much complexity on a common)