Refortify - 4WW
Sorcery (R)
Put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield.
You may search your library for a creature card with the same name as that card, put it onto the battlefield, and shuffle your library.
Not a great Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite strategy
I see it as a solid card that would be included in non-Highlander casual decks like Angels, or perhaps as a build-around card for certain white reanimator variants. Potentially in control decks that have a couple full playsets of powerful creatures. Lastly, it's not horribly underpowered if all you do is get your fatty back into play, although most players would rather only pay 4 or 5 mana for that.
Sapling Altar - 1
Artifact (U)
As an additional cost to cast Sapling Altar, return a Forest you control to its owner's hand.
Sapling Altar enters the battlefield tapped. T: Add one mana of any colour to your mana pool.
Was going for a flavourful design that gave green an edge over other colours when it came to mana "rocks".
Design:
As for my design strategy, philosophy, whatever you want to call it. It's no secret that I don't think this forum is only for posting cards we intend to be printed in the next Magic set due to be released. I'm not alone in that. For a long time, I've said (and put in my signature) that I "don't design with limited in mind", and taken a fair bit of flack for that. My response is always that I've been designing Magic cards long before "limited" even existed, and didn't feel the need to adjust myself when it came along. If people will only critique card designs that are intended for play in limited, fair enough - just skip my stuff.
But I've come up with a better way to word it. See my sig.
I'm designing cards for Portal 4, an imaginary set that will never be printed, of course, but WOULD have all the characteristics of the other 3 Portal sets, the important ones being:
- no limited play
- legal in older formats like Legacy constructed
- no MTGO play
Another aspect of "Portal 4" that impacts my designs are that the power level should be moderate (they should be good, without obsoleting existing cards that are playable). Also, cards shouldn't be overly simple and boring, but shouldn't be complicated or esoteric either. They should appeal to a majority of players. I aim to design cards people look at and say "hmmm, I could probably find a deck to use that in, since it's fairly powerful and there's nothing currently quite like it out there".
Another difference with my designs is that I don't necessarily follow Wizards' "seasonal" design philosophies. I say seasonal because they change over time, and sometimes flip flop from one to another. An example is when Artifacts always had to be uncommon or rare. "Rules" like this come and go, so I chose not to follow what Wizards' is currently doing, and decide for myself. A current application of this is that Wizards believes heavy mana requirements in a spell push it toward being uncommon or rare, and away from common. I don't necessarily agree, and think a mana cost of GGG at common would make sense, especially if designed with the right flavour. Portal 4 may have a common red instant that costs RRRR, who knows. After all, it won't be played in Limited, which is the main reason for Wizards' decision in the first place, since in Limited you need to play 2, 3, or even more colours.
Another difference is Wizards avoids any design that may be controversial, or adult-themed, etc. I don't give a Plague Rat's arse.
I just wanted to post that here, so those who regularly read my threads can check it out. I'm not looking for an argument or to make anybody upset. We all post cards for various reasons and under various assumptions. Most simply go with the default set of assumptions, which is that the cards are meant to be reviewed by Wizards' R&D for possible inclusion in the next set or block. I'm choose to design cards for Portal 4. If you don't understand that, feel free to ask for clarification. If you don't like that, feel free to read something else
I think the rock just has a different function to BoP. BoP is used as a mana fixer but can block or hold equipment, but can also die to removal. This doesn't die to most removal and instead acts like a City of Brass that ETB tapped and requires you to have forests. In a deck, I would run these over land slots rather than in additional slots as they do (effectively) cost a land drop.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're having creature problems I feel bad for you son
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Refortify - 4WW
Sorcery (R)
Put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield.
You may search your library for a creature card with the same name as that card, put it onto the battlefield, and shuffle your library.
Not a great Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite strategy
I see it as a solid card that would be included in non-Highlander casual decks like Angels, or perhaps as a build-around card for certain white reanimator variants. Potentially in control decks that have a couple full playsets of powerful creatures. Lastly, it's not horribly underpowered if all you do is get your fatty back into play, although most players would rather only pay 4 or 5 mana for that.
Sapling Altar - 1
Artifact (U)
As an additional cost to cast Sapling Altar, return a Forest you control to its owner's hand.
Sapling Altar enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add one mana of any colour to your mana pool.
Was going for a flavourful design that gave green an edge over other colours when it came to mana "rocks".
Design:
As for my design strategy, philosophy, whatever you want to call it. It's no secret that I don't think this forum is only for posting cards we intend to be printed in the next Magic set due to be released. I'm not alone in that. For a long time, I've said (and put in my signature) that I "don't design with limited in mind", and taken a fair bit of flack for that. My response is always that I've been designing Magic cards long before "limited" even existed, and didn't feel the need to adjust myself when it came along. If people will only critique card designs that are intended for play in limited, fair enough - just skip my stuff.
But I've come up with a better way to word it. See my sig.
I'm designing cards for Portal 4, an imaginary set that will never be printed, of course, but WOULD have all the characteristics of the other 3 Portal sets, the important ones being:
- no limited play
- legal in older formats like Legacy constructed
- no MTGO play
Another aspect of "Portal 4" that impacts my designs are that the power level should be moderate (they should be good, without obsoleting existing cards that are playable). Also, cards shouldn't be overly simple and boring, but shouldn't be complicated or esoteric either. They should appeal to a majority of players. I aim to design cards people look at and say "hmmm, I could probably find a deck to use that in, since it's fairly powerful and there's nothing currently quite like it out there".
Another difference with my designs is that I don't necessarily follow Wizards' "seasonal" design philosophies. I say seasonal because they change over time, and sometimes flip flop from one to another. An example is when Artifacts always had to be uncommon or rare. "Rules" like this come and go, so I chose not to follow what Wizards' is currently doing, and decide for myself. A current application of this is that Wizards believes heavy mana requirements in a spell push it toward being uncommon or rare, and away from common. I don't necessarily agree, and think a mana cost of GGG at common would make sense, especially if designed with the right flavour. Portal 4 may have a common red instant that costs RRRR, who knows. After all, it won't be played in Limited, which is the main reason for Wizards' decision in the first place, since in Limited you need to play 2, 3, or even more colours.
Another difference is Wizards avoids any design that may be controversial, or adult-themed, etc. I don't give a Plague Rat's arse.
I just wanted to post that here, so those who regularly read my threads can check it out. I'm not looking for an argument or to make anybody upset. We all post cards for various reasons and under various assumptions. Most simply go with the default set of assumptions, which is that the cards are meant to be reviewed by Wizards' R&D for possible inclusion in the next set or block. I'm choose to design cards for Portal 4. If you don't understand that, feel free to ask for clarification. If you don't like that, feel free to read something else
.
Anyway, I like Refortify a lot.
• Recent Card Ideas • My Drawings at DeviantArt
It is! Thanks for noticing
.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Mana rock reminds me of karoo lands somehow - the fact that Forest can be reused is extra fine for simultaneous colour and mana screw.