Link's Unplaced Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
CardName: Isperia's Library Cost: Type: Land Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: {t}: Add {1} to your mana pool. A deck can contain only one card named Isperia's Library. A deck containing Isperia's Library may contain an additional two copies of a card not named Isperia's Library. At the beginning of the game, reveal Isperia's Library from your library, then shuffle your library. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Link's Unplaced Cards Mythic |
History: [-] Add your comments: |
I can't lie: I have no idea how to word this.
Also, I'm sure it's quite broken.
Hmm. It's probably not needed to name a card, but I can't see good wording even without that.
It's certainly an interesting idea; I'm not sure how warping it is (outside of highlander, where it probably would be a problem - '2 additional' would mostly get around that though)
Or... huh. Does highlander forbid Relentless Rats anyway?
The card rules trump the game rules, so I assume a singleton deck can have any number of Relentless Rats.
That's true... it's why Relentless Rats is banned in highlander.
I was going to suggest a bunch of changes to the card, but then I stepped back and realized that I really liked the card, and what I was doing was riffing off of it, not adding anything to it. It's spiffy. If this card ever ended up in the game of Magic, I think I'd argue that there may be another better way of pushing this iconic card across the table, but I'd be happy if it flew like this.
Tricky bit comes when you happen to draw 6 of the chosen card and no Isperia's Library. Especially when playing with people who've never heard of this card. It's worse than morph. "Yeah, the 4 card limit does apply, it's just that I've got this card in my deck somewhere... I'll show it to you when the game's over..."
What if you revealed this before you started playing? Use that as a trigger, and just be like "I reveal this, so my deck becomes legal in this format."
This really does need some sort of revelation clause...
I get the idea of 'you can't wish for infinite wishes', but does this work? The card's text says there can be only one of itself, but then it tells you to name a card. Which rule is the winner here? This conflict can be avoided by restricting your naming choices to everything but itself. Then it would work perfectly.
Also, what would be the most broken thing to get with this? Probably Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall
Oh, wow. I never would have thought of that.
Reworded.