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 16:13:23)
I didn't even think about what SecretInfiltrator brought up - casting this card successively.
This isn't a common, man. Not by a long shot.
Also, he MaRo may say commonality isn't "about" power level, but actions speak louder than words. Lightning Strike is an uncommon now. Power level and commonality are absolutely related; but they aren't determinant.
A 3CMC "each player loses 5 life" spell could maybe be at common (and as 1BB Sorcery) in a set with a suicide-black theme. But there's no way it would have your second clause, which is restricted to Rares.
And here's where I flip the tables: it's not restricted to Rares for power level. It's restricted to Rares so that it's an effect that feels like it makes a Rare rare.
IF you're absolutely insistent on this spell, here's the most liberal version I could possibly entertain:
Feed the Emptiness
Sorcery C
You and target player each lose 5 life.
I still say that's too strong. 5 life for 3 mana just shouldn't happen. Red has to pay 3 mana just to get 4 damage in at uncommon (with the odd 2-mana exception of Boros Charm). And Red is the primary color for direct damage!
"Whey". ;)
This stops only the untap of permanents that entered the battlefield during a certain turn, so this is not Time Walk unless Unsummon is, or Silence - a card that can undo/prevent a turn's worth of development.
The issue is obviously the non-standard wording "when they do".
That would be a separate paragraph like "Whenever a permanent enters the battlefield this turn, it doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.", maybe?
Personally, I'd add "nonland" and remove "though long it seem" from the flavor text. That should solve space issues.
With it affecting lands, there might be some play confusion regarding when to cast this for new players (since land drops can't be responded to), so it might just be better to say nonland. Saving a word/line of text on a card isn't worth the time it takes to explain to new players when they should cast this if they want to lock you out of lands. One other point of counterintuitive-ness is that, if you only have one land in hand and your opponent casts this during his or her upkeep, it might just be better to wait until your next turn to play the land, so you're only locked out of the mana for one turn instead of two.
You're welcome!
Actually on second thought, with the preventing-untap the next turn as well, this is totally a Time Walk. This card would see play in Vintage.
You need to add nonland at this mana cost, irregardless of rarity.
Messing with lands like this can have a Time Walk effect. And that alone isn't necessarily a problem, but it can really screw someone over.
In limited, you spend a lot of time playing around commons. This isn't a healthy common to play around with how it affects lands. You could move it up to Uncommon to get around this, or just have it affect nonland permanents (that's my vote). That will get the enchantments too, which might be what you're aiming for.
Remember: land restriction is a very unfun mechanic.
I'd still go with 5, because that's the number you see in the green Commune mega-cycle (which started with Commune with Nature).
I'd say that at 6 it is "too strong", but even at 5 the card is "too strong" (or at least breaks NWO). ...But I never liked that rule from NWO anyway, so I'm happy to see a custom set push the limit on it! (I just feel 5 is that limit.)
This looks so much better!
Also I mispoke earlier on the instant-speed Scry. I'm not sure what I was thinking.
I think this will work okay as a very strong common. And it's good to have some of those.
I still advocate editing the proclaim text to "and continue play with this card revealed from your hand.", but I understand if you choose not to. I know you're changing normal templating like mill/bury and a few others elsewhere in the set.
Actually, I see why you want to keep this at uncommon. It should go back to BB as an uncommon though.
I like the card. :)
To make a good set though, you can't deviate from the norm TOO much though or people dismiss it. In an ironic way, custom sets receive more scrutiny from players because you aren't any authority.
WotC does something crazy and breaks a rule? People accept it. A custom card does something crazy and breaks a rule? People question it. A custom set does something crazy and breaks a lot of rules? People reject it.
That's why I'm critiquing these things. I see the time you put into this, I care about LOTR, and most importantly I see that you're actually taking time to deliver (make it playable). I want to see this succeed.
So please listen. Overall you're breaking too many rules. And this here is an easy one to fix:
Just put the card at sorcery.
It will still functionally fill the same role in the set. You're not compromising anything.
And the "It's too strong" point still stands. Suicide black always views even life loss as a boon, since winning at 1 life is just as good as winning at 20.
That's kind of the point of blue creatures.
Yup. No change needs to be made, I was just pointing it out. It's okay to have some cards that reward players for knowing the rules.
"Return target Island you control to its owner's hand and put target nonland permanent you don't control on top of its owner's library."
You don't need the If clause anymore. And "nonland permanent you don't control" fits the theme better.
Where are you getting all of this artwork? Kudos to the effort you've put into this!
"and Island" -> "target Island"
"up to two" to "up to one"
I see what you mean. I could add "The copies all have the same target as the original ability" to that reminder for this card, but that would mean cutting out the flavor text :(
So far, I haven't encountered that issue in my playtest sessions, and this is an uncommon anyway, so I think I'll keep as it is for now.
Yeah, but Leyline Phantom is really, really bad.
Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done.
Power wise, it's pretty close to Inspiration, but more color intensive. That life loss can be a boon or curse depending on the situation.
"it" -> "that Rebel"
3/5
-> 3/3 
-> 
-> 
Trying out without the scry reminder text...
added "another"
Changed into 'up to six format' and removed the flavor text.