Frightful Desperation: Recent Activity
| Frightful Desperation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Frightful Desperation: (Generated at 2025-05-03 02:13:31)
| Frightful Desperation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Frightful Desperation: (Generated at 2025-05-03 02:13:31)
My gut-instinct is that it seems way too costly for it does. I would lower its cost to 1 or perhaps to 2 along with cantripping - so like Prophetic Prism almost. That way people can mess with it and Jeweled Lotus in legacy.
Then again, this is a custom set, so it really ought to do something here specifically rather than in some hypothetical environment. Otherwise, it's just a blank card. You should think what sort of interactions you might want to see with it and then create some cards that more or less by 'fortunate happenstance' benefit from it - then balance it upon those interactions rather than anything else. As is, currently there are zero cards in the set that would benefit from mana cost restrictions being removed, so it might as well cost
really.
Oh hey, it's like a colorshifted Flesh Reaver - makes sense.
This is again a scenario where the card's rarity seems questionable. It doesn't technically hit any sort of red-flag from what I can see, but it the very least seems kinda... 'swingy' don't you think? Say, if you have 3 of these on board which isn't hard to say when it costs so little and is a common, life totals for both sides might change by up to 12 points, so over 50% percent. I even shudder to think of a mirror match of shorts where both have copies of these.
It's swingy whether it's for your benefit or against you as obviously the card has a hefty drawback. I by no means think is too powerful, more so the opposite in fact, but it does to me seem too 'impactful' of a card to generate 'healthy' gameplay scenarios when it's set to appear with such frequency in limited.
This reminds me a lot of Order of the Stars. I would generally not put an 'infinite blocker' into a set at common. If a deck get a lot of copies this in limited, and it can if it were a common, you can make decks that are essentially immune to ground assaults.
The wording is off btw, you have written as if it were a static ability were it instead should be worded like a trigger.
> "When ~ blocks a creature, remove that creature from combat."
Also, while this isn't the current convention by WotC, I would heavily consider some sort of a reminder text, especially if the concept of removing creatures from combat is only to appear in this card in this environment. Something in the vein of Reconnaissance would make sense, where it notes: "(It neither deals nor receives combat damage this turn.)"
Additionally, I note that generally these effects tend to untap the said creature as well as removing it from combat, so it can still act as a blocker against your potential 'counterattacks' on the following turn.
top --> bottom of the stack. This card is axed.
I actually don't disagree. I really should not try to write cards while not entirely sober.
For one thing, I believe I intended the activated ability to allow the thing to evade wraths and the like which obviously does not do; most likely, I wanted the thing to be put on the bottom of the stack instead, which I'm sure would cause some kind of problems somewhere.
Other than that, I mostly concur the thing is best just axed, this particular card if not the whole sorcery-creature idea.
I don't like this particular card. Goes through so much trouble just to make this interact different with certain counterspells etc. than just blinking the creature. A straight activated ability that pings would be fine, too.
I'm not saying you can't find something interesting and worthwhile exploring this space, but this card is not that interesting and worthwhile thing.
The activated ability should go through the process of casting the card from the battlefield,because entering the stack without the casting process always causes issues and casting is something players are already familiar with.
Tried to change it up a bit so that it no longer works by creating an enchantment to point to a card, and instead just imprints on the card and has an ability to change the card it is imprinting on.
To me it looks like this design is entirely too much tangled up in its own mechanical implementation details. I would personally kinda just restart the whole design process with it by (re)conceptualizing what is the high-level conceptual intent, idea, and/or gameplay you are looking for this particular card to convey and accomplish.
Currently when I look at this my reaction is just basically that of confusion - and I'm almost irresistible forced to try to figure out what's the supposed intent by its designer rather than looking it as a card existing on its own.
Like, it looks to me that the mechanical weight of the card is solely on the enchantment rather than the creature, which begs the question why isn't it an enchantment to begin with? The creature hasn't a single ability that isn't directly about the generated enchantment - so does it really need to be a creature? It seems to me like that's just adding unnecessary complexity more than anything else.
The syntax of the wording is quite sketchy which in some part plays into it being hard to parse. I recommend checking Spellweaver Volute as an example of an Aura enchanting a card in a graveyard.
Feels like a mythic rare at least for the complexity layer it adds - it's basically a subgame around keeping mana untapped.
Yes, it is so. Though the idea was that any player may pay
in response to the activation of the first ability to pull the rug under whomever tries to do something exceedingly powerful. Say the Gift is attached to Concentrate, player X casts some sorcery and pays 
3 times to harmonize Concentrate trice to it; in response, player Y may pay 
once to move the Gift to something else of much minor effect - assuming there is such a thing in some graveyard -, and the card that would end up harmonized trice would be the second one instead of Concentrate
So, to get that right, with Shadowmonger's Gift attached to a Concentrate each spell has effectively "multikicker
" and "Draw three cards for each time this was kicked"?
The big issue is that this becomes available to your opponent first... if they have the nonpermanent card.
changed 'splice' to 'harmonize' with the same definition
Yes, I haven't yet figured a different keyword to use and I'm using splice as a stand-in. Anyway, the intended meaning is that you add the full rule text of the 'spliced' card on the target spell on the stack, and if doing that would require some extra targets you choose those targets as you do so (I should also probably find a way to word it so that it works within the rules)
How does splicing work? It can't be like splice onto Arcane, because that needs to happen during casting.