I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Yeah, that cycle is a bit too predictable and derivative. It's almost like submitting the two mana dorks to "complete" the cycle of Llanoawar Elves, Avacyn's Pylgrim and Elves of Deep Shadow. Sure, balanced and believable, but not exciting nor very creative.
Speaking of cycles, anyone liking my monocolour mix of two guild-keywords cards? The Detain+Battallion was kind of boring, but I quite like the Extort+Populate one and the one I'm submitting today. For some reason, I'm restricting myself to make each card in the cycle cost CC.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I was concerned the wording might be unclear like that. The answer is yes, as the intent was that they have a higher total. Perhaps the wording should be "if an opponent has a higher total (number?) of artifacts and enchantments than you, X"
What I didn't like was the ability's name. "Decadence" as an ability name seems to be a quality your cards have, when in reality is a quality that the opponent's game state may have, triggering your cards in reaction. I think it needed a name like "envy" which is what your creatures actually have.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
@Mao: Is it me, or you may take control of a creature permanently with your Ooze? First ab. triggers. You get priority, then sacrifice the number of creatures you need to gain control of a creature with certain power, being the Ooze the last one. Voilá! Permanent Persuasion (See Bloodthrone Vampire's rulings) You may even take control of a Titan permanently just by sacrificing the ooze.
Yup! And many other tricks. It costs the same as Mind Control, after all, but much harder to pay and you may need to incur in card disadvantage to get the real good stuff.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Agghh so close! Congratulations to BM, anyway, who led the competition through the whole month and shouldn't have been upstaged by some bozo at the last moment!
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
A small bit of personal advice to everyone: If you find yourself having to use the word "lethal damage" in the rules text of a card you designed, you are wording that card wrong and it makes it sound horribly amateurish.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Maokun, I think Master Replicator is missing a pretty critical keyword ability...
You know those old warner brothers cartoons where a character would facepalm so hard that it kind of sticks to it so when they pull their hand back, their faces stretch all rubbery-like until bouncing back with a smack? Because I cannot find a gif of that and that's my face right now.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Only reason I didn't vote for Sir Karn's lamb is that it should be restricted to redirect only spells targeting creatures you control, so you can't use it (unflavourfully) to steal your opponent's auras and Giant Growths.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
MDeham: Note that your cycle is far and above the worst mana stones ever made. 3 stones at worst produce two colours, at best produce any colour and have an additional ability. Being able only to very conditionally produce one colour of mana perhaps would be properly costed at 0
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I play mostly limited but I usually vote for cards that bring something new and exciting to the table without horribly increasing complexity or being too powerful.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Speaking of cycles, anyone liking my monocolour mix of two guild-keywords cards? The Detain+Battallion was kind of boring, but I quite like the Extort+Populate one and the one I'm submitting today. For some reason, I'm restricting myself to make each card in the cycle cost CC.
Not sure if you noticed that I posted a card with the same mechanic (with a different name, obv) the day before?
What I didn't like was the ability's name. "Decadence" as an ability name seems to be a quality your cards have, when in reality is a quality that the opponent's game state may have, triggering your cards in reaction. I think it needed a name like "envy" which is what your creatures actually have.
Yup! And many other tricks. It costs the same as Mind Control, after all, but much harder to pay and you may need to incur in card disadvantage to get the real good stuff.
A small bit of personal advice to everyone: If you find yourself having to use the word "lethal damage" in the rules text of a card you designed, you are wording that card wrong and it makes it sound horribly amateurish.
You know those old warner brothers cartoons where a character would facepalm so hard that it kind of sticks to it so when they pull their hand back, their faces stretch all rubbery-like until bouncing back with a smack? Because I cannot find a gif of that and that's my face right now.