So Ling 素靈: Recent Activity
| So Ling 素靈: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | So Ling Block Overview | Planeswalker's Guide to So Ling 素靈 |
Recent updates to So Ling 素靈: (Generated at 2025-08-18 17:29:57)
/me is now humming:
Dm d'dl'd'dl dm d'dl'd'dl dmDmDmDMDmdm
Dm d'dl'd'dl dm d'dl'd'dl dmDmDmDMDmdm
Da da da Dahhh
Da da da da da
Dm d'dl'd'dl dm d'dl'd'dl Dm d'dl'd'dl dm d'dl'd'dl
LOL. Oh, good symmetry in a split card!
I like it too. It'd certainly be fine at uncommon, but I can sortof see it at common too.
Imprison is "granted", much like detain. Flavorwise and mechanic-wise, I don't think cards should have imprison inherently. But you never know. Could Escaped Criminal have imprison instead of activated ability?
I looked through the other cards and see which ones could replace exile with imprison. So far none of the others really match unless I adjust their costs.
Are any cards going to have imprison inherently? If so then like Jhoira of the Ghitu this needs to say "If it doesn't have imprison, it gains imprison."
Yeah. Unlike Bury, this isn't technicallly pie-breaking... ot at least it has plenty of recent precedents.
@Vitenka: My point was, I thought that, if they want a card that makes a creature go away for good, they're nowadays trying to use "exile", which normally does the job, rather than "destroy" with "can't be regenerated" added. (Hence the big push by Mark Rosewater to avoid cards that bring themselves back if something exiles them.) But looking at gatherer, I'm not sure that was right any more.
Based on the discussion on Bury, I made the card Purify the Flesh. I didn't realize that you had already made this as well.
All of your official color bleeding examples are mechanical bleed, not philosophical bleed. There are different layers to the color pie: the core, which is what each color currently does; and the mantle, which is things that are a bit weird but still make sense for the color; and the crust, which is things the color can do but doesn't. (See Chaos Theory by MaRo.)
of course a single card that bleeds for no reason should be scrutinized, especially if it's overpowered. which is not the case here.
also, an entire set or block of color bleed is a precedent, whether you deny it or not. how can you claim a single card with bleed is bad, but an entire official set made by Wizards can be just ignored out of existence? in other words, why should Wizards be the only people who can experiment with color bleed?
many "official" color pie shifts started from bleeding. vigilance used to white and blue, now green gets vigilance more than blue. green was the first to get fighting, now red also does. red fails at card draw with direct advantage, but get an inferior form in looting. white now get certain forms of counterspells. etc.
in other words, anti-color bleed shouldn't be followed strictly and blindly. even wizards themselves break the rules all the time. so each card and each set should be judged by their own merits, even if it does a little color bleeding.
I fear this might be a bit confusing for common. It's not exactly a straightforward X spell. In combat it's basically Comet Storm, isn't it?
So if I play three different situses the first three turns of the game, I could be at seven mana on turn four without any actual ramp?
Interesting. Combos amusingly with Prismatic Omen.
Hmmm. Symmetrical No Mercy? Can't even get around it with regeneration or indestructibility, either.
As for this:
> color bleed happens all the time. red and black DO get enchantment removal. blue CAN destroy creatures. white CAN draw cards.
But every single time they're subjected to intense scrutiny. They have to be, otherwise the colour pie will cease to mean anything at all. Certain sets like New Phyrexia are deliberately pie-bleeding, which means they're not precedent for other colour-bleeds. Any colour bleed in sets other than those is very sparse and needs cautious examination, to see whether it's worth it.