Fetish Wars: Recent Activity
| Fetish Wars: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Fetish Wars: (Generated at 2024-04-26 08:39:32)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
sorcery to 
instant
Was "UEOT creatures you control get +2/+2 if you own five or more exiled instants or sorceries." added a base +1/+1 buff for when you don't have the cards in exile and also color restricted because I don't think blue would get an unrestricted "+1/+1" boon
The second ability should btw specify that Pin becomes a "a 2/2 Faerie Rogue creature".
Followed Tahazzar's formatting suggestions
It's a common convention to have the plus abilities of this sort to be optional in their targets so that they can be activated even when there aren't any legal targets for them. For example, see Jace, Cunning Castaway and Tamiyo, Field Researcher. My point is that I would change that +1 to "Whenever up to one target creature..." It's also notably that is very similar to aforementioned Jace as it has the exact same starting loyalty, mana cost, as well as a similar +1 loyalty ability. I would address that and change it in some manner to be more distinct by comparison.
Is there some particularly relevant reason as to why the draw on the first ability is optional?
The second ability has a weird redundancy where it becomes a creature with both flying and "can't be blocked", which renders the said flying wholly meaningless. It get that it makes sense from flavor sense for it to have flying it feels mechanically extremely awkward.
Some rules text typos:
"... to an opponent" should be followed by a comma in the first ability. "Faerie" and "Rogue" should be capitalized as they are creature types. The third ability should say "can't be blocked" in the same manner the second ability does. Loyalty activation costs of "0" aren't preceded by a "+" sign (for example, see Lolth, Spider Queen).
spelling fix
I suppose it would be a reasonable approach these days given that ward is a now a keyword choice. Is it necessary though? Dunno.
It looks to be somewhat comparable to cards like Shielding Plax, Spectral Flight, Curator's Ward, Starlit Mantle, Canopy Cover / Alpha Authority, and maybe even Elephant Guide? It's definitely decent but doesn't seem too out of line to me.
Should this be ward instead of hexproof? Granting hexproof permanently is spooky
Also, *camouflaged
wording correction
First ability could start with "Look at the top card of your library.If it's an Aura card, you may put" etc.
It also probably shouldn't target. You save a lot of text space that way, too, since Auras have special rules that allow them to attach if brought into play this way.
Activation cost from
to 
. Am considering either 
or 
as alternatives
I don't think hybrid in itself is a problem, but when you are having an extremely mana efficient card is, being hybrid in addition to that is a factor. You are not only giving it to one color, but two, and it's actually better than either of those monocolored cards would be since it has a more flexible casting cost - a multicolored deck is more likely to be able to pay the hybrid cost than the monocolored cost.
Now that the cost has been adjusted, it isn't much of a concern at all.
Beats Malevolent Awakening.
I feel the problem here is paying in (parts of a) creature to get yourself a creature at such a low running cost. Invest more mana into the activation and it might balance the fact that you can avoid the card disadvantage with a high toughness creature.
Fair points.
@Tahazzar: Why do you consider hybrid to be a problem?
back to mana value 3
A full cantrip feels like too much, but there are plenty of lesser options e. g. "Scry 1.", "You may discard a card. If you do, draw a card."
Another option is exchanging the cantrip for an Abrade-variant which makes this less of a sideboard card "Choose one - Shatter; or ~ deals 3 damage to target attacking creature." is an option.
Alternatively put a condition on the card draw "If a noncreature artifact is destroyed this way, draw a card." or anything set-specific.
At least back in the old days, people development tended to be very careful about slapping a cantrip to an effect. It was considered to be worth a full
or at least 1.5 mana - even with cards which we consider to be very effective, such as like Elvish Visionary (ie. 1/1 for 
would be an absolutely horrid card, you can technically get a 1/1 for 
with Memnite) and Dismiss (which has since only had really bad variants in Bone to Ash and Contradict). Given that, I do consider this to be over the line - even if we ignore it being hybrid which is IMO a factor to consider in itself.
Power creep is definitely real thing. When I made this in 2015, three mana seemed fine, but looking the other day, felt overcosted. Red has plenty of ability to destroy artifacts with a bonus for two mana. White has gotten the ability to destroy artifacts for two mana with the bonus of lifegain for 2 mana via Divine Offering. Because of that, and the set's inclusion of hybrid card slots due to multicolor theme, this felt natural as a hybrid card. What is the (mana) value of adding a cantrip to a spell?
I never looked much at the original Mirrodin, but I thought Scars of Mirrodin had artifact removal more pushed, though I remember Theros scaling back enchantment removal. Since I tried to make a significant amount of artifacts for Fetish in this set and Okundwa, I thought there should be more answers, and am of the belief answers to something broad like card type should always be available at common in the colors that have those answers.
This seems a bit overtuned to what we have gotten in the past. See Dissenter's Deliverance and Smash for example - and Smash is very decently rated overall afaik. Shredded Sails and Topple the Statue might indicate this sort of stuff is plausible though it being also hybrid is really sketchy to me at least.
Is there are need for artifact removal at common in your set, where it's both extremely mana effective and flexible? Often the case in mtg sets is where WotC wants to showcase a card type, like enchantments in Theros and artifacts in mirrodin sets, that they might even make the corresponding removal for those card types actually weaker than usual.
2R/W to 1R/W
added once each turn
omitted nonland and 3
to 
{W
In another set, I added actor, artist, and musician as types. Since a card references the musician type, I just thought I'd update this card. I feel those professions are distinct enough to each warrant their own class type (I also used dancer, though I already used dancer in a previous set). Also, currently I anticipate that most creatures in the set would have one of those professions as their class type. Seeing just artist on a third or so of the creatures in the set wouldn't be a good look for the set as a whole imho.
Could it be generalized to Artist? Do you feel Musicians / Artists lack representation in Magic?
Added musician type, retained original types as well