BadAtMagic - Revision history

imported>Administrator: 202 revisions imported

2023-06-17T21:47:38Z

202 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:47, 17 June 2023
(No difference)

92.223.224.218 at 13:59, 3 August 2015

2015-08-03T13:59:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:59, 3 August 2015
Line 477:		Line 477:
	:::Don't be stupid. Acid Rain is a color hoser, pure and simple. Furthermore, Acid Rain would never be printed under modern design rules. Furthermore, under our current design proposal, this set should have NO land destruction.		:::Don't be stupid. Acid Rain is a color hoser, pure and simple. Furthermore, Acid Rain would never be printed under modern design rules. Furthermore, under our current design proposal, this set should have NO land destruction.
	:How about halving the mana cost and changing the effect to "Tap target land. If it cannot be tapped, destroy it". Plays into blue-as-control, and also has the effect of an eroding progression. (edit: thinking it over, make it "Instant. Target player taps a land they control. If they have no untapped land, they sacrifice a land they control". Harder to snipe special lands whilst still dicking about with their power sources)		:How about halving the mana cost and changing the effect to "Tap target land. If it cannot be tapped, destroy it". Plays into blue-as-control, and also has the effect of an eroding progression. (edit: thinking it over, make it "Instant. Target player taps a land they control. If they have no untapped land, they sacrifice a land they control". Harder to snipe special lands whilst still dicking about with their power sources)

			NNB: if you change in "sacrifice" it is more in flavor. There was blue card that destroy lands, but only in odd ways, like for example "mana vortex".

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard

1d4chan>Slave at 19:49, 26 April 2015

2015-04-26T19:49:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 26 April 2015
Line 476:		Line 476:
	::Acid Rain would like to have a word with anyone who thinks land destruction is not blue. Still, UUUU isn't that hard to cast for mono blue (read, not at all) and that might be a viable deck to play, and land destruction is usually either green, black or red. I'd say make it at least partially red, and only to a small part blue if you really want that in, like 2RU or something.		::Acid Rain would like to have a word with anyone who thinks land destruction is not blue. Still, UUUU isn't that hard to cast for mono blue (read, not at all) and that might be a viable deck to play, and land destruction is usually either green, black or red. I'd say make it at least partially red, and only to a small part blue if you really want that in, like 2RU or something.
	:::Don't be stupid. Acid Rain is a color hoser, pure and simple. Furthermore, Acid Rain would never be printed under modern design rules. Furthermore, under our current design proposal, this set should have NO land destruction.		:::Don't be stupid. Acid Rain is a color hoser, pure and simple. Furthermore, Acid Rain would never be printed under modern design rules. Furthermore, under our current design proposal, this set should have NO land destruction.
	:How about halving the mana cost and changing the effect to "Tap target land. If it cannot be tapped, destroy it". Plays into blue-as-control, and also has the effect of an eroding progression.		:How about halving the mana cost and changing the effect to "Tap target land. If it cannot be tapped, destroy it". Plays into blue-as-control, and also has the effect of an eroding progression. (edit: thinking it over, make it "Instant. Target player taps a land they control. If they have no untapped land, they sacrifice a land they control". Harder to snipe special lands whilst still dicking about with their power sources)

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard
Line 814:		Line 814:
	:As far as I can tell, this basically comes down to whether or not the set ends up with a way to cheat the thing out.		:As far as I can tell, this basically comes down to whether or not the set ends up with a way to cheat the thing out.
	::Even if there is a way, it's not really very interesting even if it gets on the field. It's pretty much a trashy top down.		::Even if there is a way, it's not really very interesting even if it gets on the field. It's pretty much a trashy top down.
			:It's a strange but interesting idea. Not a fan of the execution. How about making it a (0) cost artifact, 0/1 defender with shroud, indestructable etc. With the special rule "Can be cast as an instant for (1). Sacrifice Rigid Treasure at the end of the turn. When placed into a graveyard Rigid Treasure deals 1 damage to controlling player". If you are in a pinch you can drop a temporary defender down to block an attack for a turn, at the cost of one life. Or, if you're a Johnny player, you might be able to work out something using it as a sacrificial token for another card using the (0) cost and taking a point of damage instead. Yes, I'm a fan of unusual artifacts like Cursed Idol. Flavour text can be something along the lines of "It is a weightier burden than any man may carry..." or something equally pretentious. Change the name, too.


	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard

1d4chan>Slave: Comments on cards

2015-04-26T11:18:54Z

Comments on cards

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 26 April 2015
Line 202:		Line 202:
	}}		}}
	:"cannon" not "canon"		:"cannon" not "canon"
			::Maybe it really did officially happen.

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard
Line 318:		Line 319:
	}}		}}
	:Suggestions for flavor text would be nice. I can't think of anything. It's an enchantment that makes things big.		:Suggestions for flavor text would be nice. I can't think of anything. It's an enchantment that makes things big.
			:"Don't fret, Cap'n... it's only a tiny albat-"

	=== Green ===		=== Green ===
Line 411:		Line 413:
	}}		}}
	I would like to give it a better name. Any ideas?		I would like to give it a better name. Any ideas?
			:"Ancient Carcharadon"? Adding "Ancient" onto anything makes it better.

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard
Line 473:		Line 476:
	::Acid Rain would like to have a word with anyone who thinks land destruction is not blue. Still, UUUU isn't that hard to cast for mono blue (read, not at all) and that might be a viable deck to play, and land destruction is usually either green, black or red. I'd say make it at least partially red, and only to a small part blue if you really want that in, like 2RU or something.		::Acid Rain would like to have a word with anyone who thinks land destruction is not blue. Still, UUUU isn't that hard to cast for mono blue (read, not at all) and that might be a viable deck to play, and land destruction is usually either green, black or red. I'd say make it at least partially red, and only to a small part blue if you really want that in, like 2RU or something.
	:::Don't be stupid. Acid Rain is a color hoser, pure and simple. Furthermore, Acid Rain would never be printed under modern design rules. Furthermore, under our current design proposal, this set should have NO land destruction.		:::Don't be stupid. Acid Rain is a color hoser, pure and simple. Furthermore, Acid Rain would never be printed under modern design rules. Furthermore, under our current design proposal, this set should have NO land destruction.
			:How about halving the mana cost and changing the effect to "Tap target land. If it cannot be tapped, destroy it". Plays into blue-as-control, and also has the effect of an eroding progression.

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard
Line 595:		Line 598:
	}}		}}
	:Needs flavor text.		:Needs flavor text.
			::How about "I intend to see that any man who sails under a pirate flag or wears a pirate brand gets what he deserves: a short drop and a sudden stop", "One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness" or "Damn the cannon! Full speed ahead!"
	:Debating changing to a soldier. That way we don't have too many new creature types.		:Debating changing to a soldier. That way we don't have too many new creature types.
	:If you leave as is, then we will have added two creature types (Sailor and Ship)		:If you leave as is, then we will have added two creature types (Sailor and Ship)
Line 661:		Line 665:
	This is really out of flavor for B/W, blue taps not black or white.		This is really out of flavor for B/W, blue taps not black or white.
	Maybe some sort of life gain, life loss effect? Or -1/-1 counters?		Maybe some sort of life gain, life loss effect? Or -1/-1 counters?
			:How about "2, T: exile target creature. When this card is untapped, return the exiled card to the battlefield under its owner's control. You may choose to not have this card untap during the untap phase"?

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard
Line 673:		Line 678:
	\|rarity=uncommon		\|rarity=uncommon
	}}		}}
			:Change to "safe harbour"

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard

2.25.114.57: /* Colorless */

2014-12-23T01:35:33Z

Colorless

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 23 December 2014
Line 788:		Line 788:
	:Needs flavor text about it drifting on its own or something.		:Needs flavor text about it drifting on its own or something.
	:Decent concept. Feels like it should be black, though, why artifact?		:Decent concept. Feels like it should be black, though, why artifact?
			:Thinking for flavour text something about "sailors telling tales of an unsinkable ship."

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard

121.218.144.115 at 12:55, 26 September 2014

2014-09-26T12:55:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:55, 26 September 2014
Line 659:		Line 659:
	\|rarity=uncommon		\|rarity=uncommon
	}}		}}
			This is really out of flavor for B/W, blue taps not black or white.
			Maybe some sort of life gain, life loss effect? Or -1/-1 counters?

	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard

91.55.143.23: /* New Mechanics */

2014-09-25T19:04:37Z

New Mechanics

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 25 September 2014
Line 52:		Line 52:
	So if you would put a sailor in it and a pirate with the text : ''All other pirates you control get +1/+1'';		So if you would put a sailor in it and a pirate with the text : ''All other pirates you control get +1/+1'';
	both ship and sailor would get the +1/+1 bonus.		both ship and sailor would get the +1/+1 bonus.
	I´m not sure though if the vessel needs the costs to get crewmembers ~~though~~.		I´m not sure though if the vessel needs the costs to get crewmembers.

	</ul>		</ul>

91.55.143.23: /* New Mechanics */

2014-09-25T19:03:07Z

New Mechanics

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 *If the creature with voyage is destroyed, the creatures in the group cant attack or block. they are still considered in the group until your next turn.
 *Only the creature with voyage is tapped when attacking.
 </ul>

91.55.143.23: /* Black */

2014-09-25T18:34:45Z

Black

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 25 September 2014
Line 85:		Line 85:
	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard
	\|name = Walk the Plank		\|name = Walk the Plank
	\|image = Walk the ~~Plank1~~.jpg		\|image = Walk the Plank2.jpg
	\|cost = 1KK		\|cost = 1KK
	\|types = Enchantment - Aura		\|types = Enchantment - Aura
Line 94:		Line 94:
	}}		}}
	:Strictly worse than any other removal, pretty much ever. Either reduce the cost or make it effect everything, then it would be at least worth putting in your sideboard.		:Strictly worse than any other removal, pretty much ever. Either reduce the cost or make it effect everything, then it would be at least worth putting in your sideboard.
			::totaly right here, thats what happens when you don´t want to overperform to much, it underperforms very badly, changed it hopes it works better now.

121.218.144.115 at 14:13, 25 September 2014

2014-09-25T14:13:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, 25 September 2014
Line 94:		Line 94:
	}}		}}
	:Strictly worse than any other removal, pretty much ever. Either reduce the cost or make it effect everything, then it would be at least worth putting in your sideboard.		:Strictly worse than any other removal, pretty much ever. Either reduce the cost or make it effect everything, then it would be at least worth putting in your sideboard.


	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard
Line 423:		Line 424:
	}}		}}
	:You could make some wicked broken Commander decks with this. Is there enchantment removal in this set?		:You could make some wicked broken Commander decks with this. Is there enchantment removal in this set?


	{{mtgcard		{{mtgcard