Silmarillion: The War of the Jewels: Recent Activity
| Silmarillion: The War of the Jewels: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Archetypes | Flavor | 1st Playtest | 2nd Playtest | 3rd Playtest |
Recent updates to Silmarillion: The War of the Jewels: (Generated at 2025-08-02 21:57:44)
Reminder texts cut a lot of corners when there's a need to lower the text length. Ie. Cascade, emerge, and the like. Those "card" and "your" words aren't crucial here since they're implicit.
Artstation, deviantart, pinterest, and the like. There's a lot of Silmarillion fan art floating around - and thanks.
White weenies don't play much enchantments so I would rather take Thalia, Guardian of Thraben much of the time for those decks given the choice.
Okay, so I added the 'nonland' clause back. Removing some snippets of the flavor text wouldn't help. Actually, adding more of it would enable fitting the text into three lines (in the MSE render). It's somewhat of a hack though, so I this is pretty close to being red flagged for text length if not for anything else.
"When it does" is something that appears in the reminder texts of hideaway cards (Mosswort Bridge and friends) so I don't think "when they do" would be that much of a stretch. Everyone knows what it means, so there is no issue there really.
Added 'nonland' back. Expanded the flavor text.
That's only if you manage to get the
deck going when picking cards. For example, with my 
deck, I realized that I couldn't get enough distinguished creatures, so I dropped a copy of Maiden of the Day-Star and didn't ever get to play Rise to Occasion from my graveyard.
So getting a bunch of legendary creatures isn't as easy as one might think. In red, the common distinguished creatures have the following mana costs
, 
, and 
. For white, those costs are 
and 
(this card). In red and white, the ratio of distinguished common creatures to non-distinguished common creatures is 1 to 2 (5 to 10), so 50 %.
I think it's fair to distnguish between permanent boosts like Salvage Slasher/Pride of the Clouds and the above mentioned temporary ones.
And there is the issue of correctly judging the prevalence of legendary creatures in this set. But the rule that you cannot (period) have a conditional 2/2 for
is news to me.
How does that hypothetical rule handle Inventor's Apprentice?
You need a very specific set up to get anything meaningful out of this. For example, turning your cyclable cards into something like Aggressive Urge is nice, but hardly game-breaking. I could see it being an uncommon there, but here there's no need for that. Mana cost seems fine to me regardless of environment.
Example of WWWD is that they would reprint Terror as a common in the original Mirrodin since there's an overabundance of artifact creature there.
After that in the updates notes it can be seen that this used to fetch two basics instead of any land, so it was a different circumstance.
You really have to start questioning things. What would happen if this were a common? Would it break the environment? If not, why would it be a problem to make it a common?
And most importantly, is "can't gain life effects are always rare" even a 'design rule' at all or just something that for whatever reason hasn't been done yet? You should really think of them more as design 'tips' or 'guidelines' instead of 'rules' btw.
I've reasons to believe that this card would increase interactivity in the set without being oppressive, so I think having it here would be a nice idea.
I don't think there's a single card in the set that prevents damage, so that "damage can't be prevented" would make no sense whatsoever in the set.
What 'rule' is that? Were have you heard it? You're pretty much making this up.
This is conditionally a 2/2 - same as Swiftspear is conditionally a 2/3. Flameblade Adept is another. If you want drawbacks, then 'Unless you control another legendary creature' is a drawback. If you play two of these on the board, they're both 0/2, so that's a drawback as well.
Also, there's a lot of 2/2s for
with a drawback.
Normally it's not, but in this set it's pretty much "Play 3 different creatures" - which is oddly easier in limited than constructed :)
It's a very strong card once activated; the activation hoop is a more fiddly version of the normal one though - so this does really belong at a higher rarity, or in the follow-up set (which usually gets used to stretch a mechanic).
This is no Whippoorwill. It's not like it's hovering in the air with wings on its back.
After some though, if I did give this flying, it would most actually result in the hypothetical problem you assume it now has. As in "Wait, that has flying?" (ie. older versions of Fallen Angel) I doubt levitating elves is one of the first things that pop into people's mind.
From what we can gather, this might as well as be standing on solid ground. IMO those 'clouds' could be mist so it could be on water or whatever.
Indeed it would, but then I wouldn't place it at this rarity. I've noted that in limited, that "3 or more legendary permanents" isn't the easiest of things to achieve.
"that Rebel" -> "that card"
That's true.
Actually the phrase would be "that card" since a "Rebel" is a permanent on the battlefield and that object has stopped existing becoming a card in your graveyard.
Compare e. g. Wind Zendikon.
Uncommons are very much the "build around this archetype" hint cards, usually. I can see this either way, really.
What's wrong with having a Rare put you in a certain draft archetype? That's how it's normally done.
This card is a blow-out card. Those are reserved for rares, or higher mana costs.
You could just say "distinguished -- double strike". Then it's a common version of Marisi's Twinclaws. Very strong.
White Weenies would play this all day every day. How much you want to count that in design is up to you. My recommendation is to just ditch the Chant on this card.
> Nobody has told you they assumed it has flying, you mean.
How you solicit feedback affects the type of feedback you get. Players are very cautious to be candid and explain something that makes you look stupid, or worse makes them look stupid. Or you just aren't around when something comes to the user's mind. Or they don't want to share certain opinions with the game maker (I frequently don't tell my playtesters that I designed the game so get different feedback), or any number of other things.
There's a Making Magic (or some other official WotC collumn) article entirely about how a creature that looks like it has flying in the art needs to have flying or players have confusion.
An easy fix is to change the art, or give it flying for it's Distinguished ability.
Honestly I just don't like the card at all, and I would replace it entirely. But that's okay that I don't like it. Not every card has to be up my alley. I'm not the only player type to design for.
I would ever consider playing this for anything more than
though.
Monastery Swiftspear is definitely stronger, but it's not just about card strength, it's about design rules.
Monastery Swiftspear can't have a static P/T of 2/2.
This card can.
And without a drawback that breaks the rules. (Possibly being a weak 1/2 because it's the only creature isn't a drawback. A drawback is something like "can't block" or "deals damage to you".)
No.
You can break some rules, but you're breaking too many. And when you turn a rare into a common, it just isn't right.
Try "damage can't be prevented" instead. That's an uncommon effect. That's a smaller jump and I think is bridged well by the legendary effect.
Sure I could see it as 3/1 easy. 3/2 strikes me as off, but possible.
Oh I was just commenting because on 15 APR 2017 you brought up the comparison of unc to common. I was just confirming that Uncommon is the right place to be. No change needs to be made to this card, it's good.
> [Ramp decks] would rather have a ramp-target that would help you to stabilize.
You make a good point. I think this card is fine at the current cost then.
Ah, I see why we disagree. You're only concerned with how this card fits in the set. And in this set it's lower-powered.
I don't design for larger constructed formats, but I still try to pull a "WWWD" (What Would WotC Do?) on my card costs and rarities to make the set look more professional. I break that policy of mine myself, but only when I am looking for a card to do a specific function with a flavorful reason.