Random Cards: Recent Activity
| Random Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Random Cards: (Generated at 2025-09-01 04:59:53)
| Random Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Random Cards: (Generated at 2025-09-01 04:59:53)
If this is for a challenge that needs flavour text, then you need to remove some rules text. This has too many words on it. Wizards never print flavour text on cards with this much rules text; if you're required to have flavour text then you need less rules text.
"each land" is generally better than "all lands". Either is fine in this case.
I need the flavor text, the challenge this is for requires flavor text. Should it say "all lands" instead of each?
I like this version quite a bit. And I like the flavour text, although I think it needs to be removed, its too wordy already :(
Alright, I made it affect all players and a sorcery: Is it still balanced? Is it worded correctly?
I'll second dude's idea. Affecting everybody feels pretty red, too.
I think this is fine in mono-red. I'd make it affect all players though. You could make it RG if you made it anti-non-basic somehow.
If I was to guess, I would say that the problem is the ability to target yourself. It cuts a little too close to Scapeshift. The only difference is that the lands are random.
Random is red. But a card that prevented damage to a random creature isn't red... it would probably end up being R/W. This card, as it stands, is probably R/G or maybe R/U.
Also, while I don't agree that this being an instant makes it less red, I will say it doesn't really make sense for the card to be an instant. As far as I'm concerned, if it gets the job done it's supposed to do at sorcery speed, then it should be a sorcery. Everything else is whistles and bells.
It seems red to me, a mix of randomness and land destruction. What makes this not red? Not saying you're wrong, just curious to hear your reasoning.
Balance is probably fine, though this effect almost certainly wouldn't be red nor an instant.
No idea if this is balanced. Help!
Challenge submission period closed, so too late to change anything now.
Maybe "Untap two target artifacts other than ~"? As is, it goes infinite with any combination of two artifacts that can collectively produce 4 mana.
Throwing 'other' in there does make for some awkward wording. Hmm. Maybe it's okay as is?
How do I edit this to not let me untap itself with ability 3?
I think flipping the cost would be too good for the draw ability.
This is one of those cards I'd need to play with to figure out how good it really is. There's just too much going on to get a good handle on it.
But as it stands, I think that maybe you should switch the 3 and the 4. It seems to me that the potential for recurring the same artifact over and over again is better than drawing a random card off the top.
Oh, also why does the artifact return say 'up to one'? Why would you ever activate that ability and not target anything?
Do you think it could cost
and be fine? It would be strictly better than Jayemdae Tome, but I don't think that's a huge problem for a rare.
I'm not sure. The only thing I know is that I read the card and immediately went "Ick! Discard 4 cards to draw a card? No thank you!"
I'm well aware that that's kind of an irrational response. I thought it was worth reporting, though, because people do make irrational responses like that.
Is it balanced? Underpowered? Overpowered?
It's for a challenge that requires a new keyword.
It's about as complex as Trading Post, so that's fine. Haggle seems unnecessarily niche as a keyword, however.