So I had a thought
Custom Cards forum
Posted on April 12, 2017, 7:14 p.m. by killroy726
I wanted to create a new card to make EDH interesting. So I came up with this!
The Great Mirror
Cost: X
Legendary Artifact Creature Shapeshifter
Imprint When The Great Mirror enters the battlefield, you may exile a legendary creature card from your hand or library with converted mana cost X where X is the cost of The Great Mirror.
For the rest of the game The great mirror is a copy of the imprinted card.
Partner
P/T 0/0
In short this card can lets you use any legendary creature in addition to the other partner commanders.
Well what do you think? feedback is always appreciated!
MagicalHacker says... #4
Well I would say this is overpowered, because why wouldn't literally EVERY current deck use this with any random partner to add colors to decks? Honestly, I already think that monocolored decks are already underrepresented, and this would escalate that problem to the STARS.
April 12, 2017 8:43 p.m.
killroy726 says... #5
Actually no, the card itself is colorless the only color cards the mirror could imprint would be the color of the partnered commander or something colorless. You couldn't splash red if you had the blue/green commander and the mirror.
April 13, 2017 6:08 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #6
Ahhhhhhh, I didn't pick up on that. That said, it still means nearly every mono-colored deck could become a bi-colored deck, which is a problem...
April 13, 2017 8:02 a.m.
No, MagicalHacker, it doesn't mean that.
It's either a two-color deck, meaning the partners are Great Mirror and a two-color Legendary creature, or it's a mono-color deck, with Great Mirror and a mono-color Legendary Creature. However, all existing partners are two-color.
The only thing this does is let you switch up who your second commander is, from the in-color options present in your deck, on a game-by-game basis. Which is pretty neato, but doesn't let you do any color-switching shenanigans.
That said, three minor wording issues.
Firstly, you don't need to specify what X means in the rules text, because you have X in the casting cost. Just say "Imprint--When The Great Mirror enters the battlefield, you may exile a legendary creature card from your hand or library with converted mana cost X"
Secondly, and also thirdly, the ability declaring it to always be a copy of the imprinted creature needs to go more like this:
"The Great Mirror is always a copy of the last creature imprinted with cards named The Great Mirror, except its name is still The Great Mirror, and it still has Partner and this ability."
It needs to specify that it retains partner, otherwise it would be an illegal commander, and it needs to retain its name and that ability so that it can always retain its imprint, no matter where it is. And lastly, it needs to specify "the last creature exiled with cards named ~" because the card could technically be played in Legacy and Vintage, if it were real and printed in a commander product, so multiples could be played, which would otherwise cause some problems.
April 13, 2017 6:39 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #8
Wait, why do you say I couldn't get Sidisi, Undead Vizier if I used this card plus Ravos, Soultender?
Or any monocolored commander? If I have a mono red deck, why not add green to the deck while making the commander STILL one of the commanders?
April 13, 2017 10:25 p.m.
You could do that. It wouldn't be a mono-colored deck, then. It'd be W/B. This isn't very difficult to understand.
April 13, 2017 11:02 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #11
Exactly. At this point, everyone could turn their monocolored decks into bicolored ones, escalating the problem we already have!
April 14, 2017 6:59 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #13
Who said anyone was going to build a new deck? I'm only talking about the fact that if this were to be printed, many people would convert there monocolored decks into bicolored ones; with an already pervasive issue of power discrepancy between multicolored decks and nonmulticolored decks, this would only aggravate the problem.
I've said this three times already. I don't know why it seems that this concept is so hard to grasp.
April 14, 2017 8:39 a.m.
It's just strictly better to play this plus a partner than any monocolored commander. Not to mention that it makes every single colorless commander obsolete. Sorry to be rude but just sticking partner on any commander is pretty broken.
July 1, 2017 9:14 p.m.
killroy726 says... #15
It's not necessarily any commander, first off you'd have to have more than just the two color commanders with partner we already have. Secondly it doesn't make the colorless commanders obsolete, they'd still have to be in your deck for the card to work, and this card allows the flexibility of having a different commander each game.
July 3, 2017 10:24 a.m.
My point is that why would you play a colorless deck if instead you could play a two colored deck whole still playing your preferred commander? This card allows for you to splash colors in mono colored commanders, probably breaking some of them in the process. (U/R Kiki Kiki, G/U new Selvala). It also lets you add partner to any commander, why play gets a when instead you can play ravos and this?
MollyMab says... #2
Memory issues. Many many memory issues.
Also non-creature artifacts cant be commanders so...
April 12, 2017 7:25 p.m.