Dark Omens: Recent Activity
| Dark Omens: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | The Pridelands | The Lushwood | Stonefast Mountains | The Valurian Empire | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Dark Omens: (Generated at 2026-03-07 10:27:00)
I originally had this as a 1/2 for
that got +1/+0 & unblockable if you had a Forest and an Island. I changed it to a straight 2/2 to keep it cleaner and simpler. I also played around with it costing 
as drafting even a couple of these in a Green Blue deck provided a strong advantage at 
.
I rally do appreciate any and all feedback I get and I think I am going to have to keep an eye on this card and its power level.
Also, I too like to design as if I was sending my sets directly to magic development (Except for my non-set Snap which is for random ideas I have, cards that I've designed that don't fit my set or are potentially for later sets, and cards that I am inspired to make by others' cool ideas).
Oh, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with a common being worse than an uncommon, or with a card being worse than other cards even within the same commonality. I fully appreciate that to make a set, one must make cards that are both better than the norm, and cards that are worse. At least, this assumes that you are pretending to design full sets for Magic using the same paradimes of design that Wizards uses (for example, they intend Magic to be around for a very long time, so they are concerned about power creep problems making the game unplayable if they don't devolop the cards correctly). I know, at least, that I design as if I'm sending my set directly to Magic Devolopment, and I argue about cards in the same way I would argue about them if I worked for R&D.
I bring up the fact that this card is worse than Phantom Warrior, not because I think it should be up to Phantom Warrior's power level, but because it is. Understanding the power level that your card is on par with is very important in developing your set, and one should note what other playrs will respond to. Many of them will see that the card isn't as powerful as cards in the past and will immediately hate it. I don't like that response, but I suppose there's nothing that can be done about that. If you want to keep the card at
, you should know that some people will immediately want to make it better, even if the needs of the set want to make it worse.
Funny thing is, not only do I not think that there's anything wrong with the card costing
, but on further reflection, the card might be one of the better commons of your set. Phantom Warrior and Jhessian Infiltrator are must draft cards in their colors, often times taking pick 2-4. A common version of those cards with an ignorable drawback should warp the environment a bit.
Contrary to the other comments, I think this is probably better than at least the Infiltrator, as the restrictive qualifier is generally always on in a typical limited scenario. It's not often that people are splashing this type of card off of their artifact mana sources. And the fact that this is common and in a relevant tribe means that you could grab tons of them and have them matter for something even if they can't attack for whatever reason.
If my response seems harsh in any way I apologise in advance. It isn't meant that way as I appreciate any and all feedback, both positive and negative. Feedback can only make you a better designer, so thanks all for all of your comments.
The two cards you guys refer to are both REAL uncommon cards from specific sets/environments.
This card was designed more for limited play (sealed/draft) than constructedand to play into the tribal sub-theme of the set/block. With this being a Merfolk (one of the five "main" tribes supported), along with the cards in the other 2 sets of the block and I am quite happy with the power level of this card.
Yes, in a vacuum this is worse than both Jhessian Infilrator and Phantom Warriors but then both of those cards would actually be worse than this in its block environment.
I am sure there are a lot of cards in a lot of peoples sets on this site that you could compare to a card printed by WotC and say "this is just bad compared to XXXX" and, in the overall world of Magic you would be right. BUT, even Wizards print cards that can be unfavourably compared to existing cards If they fit the Block environment they are printed in. Shock is just worse than Lightning Bolt and yet it has been reprinted several times, most recently in M12 to replace the bolt because it FIT the set/environment better than the bolt would have. Llanowar Elves could be said to be strictly worse than Birds of Paradise or Noble Hierarch but it still gets printed/played because it has its own role to fill.
Yes, I could have made this a functional reprint of either the Infiltrator or Warrior and just changed the name/creature type but that wouldn't have been the best decision for my block and its "resources matter" theme, hence I designed something that is strictly worse in general terms but, functionally and flavourfully is a better fit fior my block/set.
Actually, Phantom Warrior is all over this card too.
Except for rarity, this is just worse than Jhessian Infiltrator.
You are right. I had it exiling itself to prevent abusing it in a reanimator deck. I wasn't happy with how stilted it felt either. I have realised that all I needed to do was make the Gravecast cost higher.
& exile 2 cards from graveyard, it will be played originally but only gravecast if you have a really juicy target for it. I think it is much cleaner now. Thanks Alex.
At
fixed spelling typos
Hmm... A gravecast card that exiles itself feels really kludgy. Particularly on a common: in limited people will be going "But... What's the point?" all the time unless you have a heck of a lot of self-mill.
Dropped its P/T from 6/6 to 5/5 because I decided to standardise Gravecast - which now has you exile 2 cards from graveyard period rather than being a variable amount in addition to paying the Gravecast cost.
Having both the gravecast cost and number of cards exiled both variable was creating more confusion than it was worth, so I simplified it.
Ah, that's a new interpretation. Now reminiscent of Firebolt. Probably better, but certainly not unambiguously better.