#always a fan of black in mtg used as a 'good' color when its so often interpreted as evil and i think zev is a cool example of it

[nightmarist]

i could VERY well be overthinking this especially because MtG is not necessarily BG canon, but learning zevlor is officially UBR / blue, black, red in MtG makes me look at all his lines of dialogue with a new light, hes very strategic yes but also rather scheming i think. i get as a hellrider he probably Had to be for the sake of survival at any cost, but definitely some of his phrasing sounds "make them think its their idea" style of manipulation.

For reference: Zevlor, Elturel Exile

very cool.

after the above dialogue he says implicating kagha is initially the problem you can suggest HE "get rid of her" which causes these:

they seem so carefully phrased to:

not get his own hands dirty not put the tieflings in his command at risk you are an outsider to BOTH groups and thus the potential neutral third party to be blamed rather than him or the tieflings, especially good if you fail and/or die.

also, if you ask him to pay you he doesnt bat an eye, he just shrugs and says he'll scrape together what he can.

His mtg artwork seems to imply being controlled by the absolute, but he also has this quote when you try to tell him it's not his fault he was enthralled by the Absolute:

I'm always a fan of black in mtg used as a 'good' color when its so often interpreted as evil and i think Zevlor here is a cool example of it.

[inventors-fair]

Tri, Tri, Tri Again

What makes a common? Usually the little black and/or white symbol on the card, but that’s not the point right now. What makes a common different than an uncommon? The thing is, we know the difference between a common and a rare, even when sometimes those lines are a little weird on older cards like Scion of the Wild and Sinkhole in their own ways. The line is there these days, and we’re designing for the modern era whether we like it or not. I’d hope that after over twenty years of tinkering we’re at a place where we do like it, so there’s that.

What stops a common from being an uncommon, though, is a little harder to quantify. We have to talk about recursion, multiples, finishing, the role in the draft, the complexity for new players, etc. There are so many factors that can make pushing commons hard in ways that we don’t touch that often. I wanted to do this contest because it’s both a restriction and a challenge. Making a common card isn’t easy unless you know your slot. Making a common with the three lines of text, well, that’s something else entirely. And for the most part, I think people did amazing work. There are a couple obvious cases where I feel people should have looked at prior examples, but in terms of general work, we’re on the ball here. 

We’re only doing two bullet points this week: “Things I like” and “Where to improve.” I feel that that’s the most constructive, yes? Gimmicks can be fun, but let’s be real, we are here to get as much positive feedback as we can and to improve what we like to do, which is making custom cards. Easy enough. Let’s pick some cards and some brains. 

@deg99 — Emberwild Inferno

Things I like: On its surface, this is mechanically just fine. It’s a three-mana bolt, but with a distinct upside, and you know, nobody’s going to be upset when playing this in a draft. Red removal is perfectly fine and anti-prevention, while a corner case most days… Well, kind of. There are actually ten current standard cards that prevent damage, which is kind of surprising to me! Still, ten ain’t as much as it could be for relevance, BUT, it’s still perfectly reasonable to see that it would be in this set.

Where to improve: Firstly, “Emberwild” is spelled with an “e” at the end in every iteration of MTG cards printed thus far, and it’s kind of throwing me off. Also, it’s a term from Dominaria; what city is doing the blessing? What city are they in? There needs to be a comma after damage, “cannot” should be “can’t,” and I feel that we have to tell at least one person almost every contest: Damage needs a source. “Emberwild Inferno deals 3 damage to any target.” No spells after 1999 use that kind of wording. Please, please proofread your cards.

@dim3trodon​ — Reassembling Sentinel

Things I like: Totally fine to be using Ward here, and I like where it’s going. This is an interesting cost-to-PT ratio, definitely more aggressive, and I don’t hate it. Flying and first strike later in the game are also totally valid. I’m personally not the biggest fan of ability counters, but in this instance, there’s absolutely nothing wrong here. Permanent additions like this are important for modern Magic.

Where to improve: But why add the ability counters only if they don’t have them? Is there some ruling corner case that I’m missing? Why not just four mana for a flying counter, three for a first strike counter? It doesn’t feel intuitive to me. Yes, multiple counters are waylaid on cards like Crystalline Giant, but that’s because it wants as many as possible. Here, where you can choose, I feel you could have just had it add the counters. Regarding flavor, I don’t see how this card is “reassembling” anything. Assembling, yes, but REassembling? Not clicking for me.

@dimestoretajic​ — Mob Beast

Things I like: Gruul rules! Well, there’s no ruling, but—anyway, this card works in interesting ways and I think it’s pretty serviceable. Raging Kronch comes to mind, and the beasts of Ravnica are definitely up there. It’s an interesting name for sure, and it’s making me think more than it is making me feel critical. Is this beast part of the mob, or belonging to the mob, like it’s being wrangled? It could be either, and that’s fair. This card would make a good finisher.

Where to improve: I’m worried about multiples in draft for sure. I mean, chances are you aren’t going to get too many of them, but having a bunch of hasty finishers can be a bit of a pickle especially when you can also slot these into other multicolor strategies. Maybe it’d need to be tested to be believed, but, y’know, how many one-mana 3/3s are there, right? For the flavor text, emdash your quoter and put them on a separate line. If it’s too cramped, time to revise.

@dumbellsndragons​ — Fledgling Nightblade

Things I like: Renown is fantastic here. I don’t necessarily know how renowned an assassin wants to be, but in their own circles, heck yes. It encourages blocking in its own way, and it’s certainly powerful on that front with the deathtouch. I think for me the flavor is one of the stronger points here, and I want to see a little bit more of a “professionally getting better in all colors and competing” world, so thumbs-up there.

Where to improve: The last time we saw deathtouch and menace at common was Kederekt Creeper from Alara, and, well, I don’t think that’s precedent; deathtouch and menace is strong. Really strong. Like, at common, I think it might be a bit too strong. It shows up printed so little because of that, even at higher rarities. Honestly, a 3-mana 1/2  or 2/1 might be better, but that’s also my worrywart tendencies. I’d have to play. This design as it stands would be fine in a Modern Horizons power level set more than a standard one.

@gollumni​ — Sovereign’s Duty

Things I like: I’m a big fan of “can block any number of creatures” for someone who isn’t super defensive when playing the game. I think it’s neat, and represents cool stuff, and I like this card a lot! The name is generic, but I don’t mean that as an insult. I could see this in a core set, on Dominaria, on Theros, on Eldraine, any number of planes, and for a common, that’s a good thing. That’s some success right there. 

Where to improve: That last ability made me worried about layers until I checked with some rules people. It’s not the layers so much as it is the wording. “As long as enchanted creature’s toughness is 5 or greater, it can block any number of creatures.” Continuous effects. Argh, that really threw me for a second! It was also kind of frustrating because there wasn’t any great precedent, but you know, nothing wrong with new territory.

@hiygamer​ — Guider of Souls

Things I like: Exploit would make a very cool mechanic in Orzhov, and I think that if we ever do a “mechanic/faction mixup” contest then you get precedent on that front. Totally flavorful and totally awesome. I think that Orzhov tokens was one of my favorite draft archetypes from RNA and this card continuing that tradition with death triggers is definitely up there in terms of capturing that feeling.

Where to improve: This card feels busy for some reason. Unfortunately, for this contest, you had to have the three lines, but were this printed, I don’t think it would have vigilance. Two flying bodies would be enough. If you wanted to keep vigilance, I’d definitely knock it down to one body. Two fliers… I feel that that’s too much. But, what do I know. Also why aren’t they white and black like the other Spirits? Regardless, that flavor text is also pretty dry. Not bad, but dry. What if it was the guider talking to the spirits instead? “Come, let me lead you to the light of Orzhova.” Little simpler, shorter, more personal.

@hyenagirldick​ — Poisoned Gookeeper

Things I like: I think despite this being kind of a placeholder, everyone liked this card’s name. I’m up there. This one, wow, this is giving me a lot of whiplash. The typeline is making me think Simic, but the “horror” is making me think Innistrad, but the Scavenge is making me think Ravnica again, but—and so on and so forth. I want context! Mechanically, using “scavenge onto” as a verb here is interesting and I don’t hate it. A good twist on this mechanic.

Where to improve: Despite that drive for context, I think ultimately the mashup is making me more confused than intrigued. It’s just over the line, to be fair, but it needs consolidation of ideas. You’re asking a lot of us here, to interpret the world, a new use for the mechanic (that seems considerably cheaper than the average common scavenge-r), to have a deathtouch blocker like this with the high toughness, etc. It’s not bad! But it’s a lot.

@hypexion​ — Blade of the Blessed

Things I like: I feel that the trend of having cool explorations of auras and equipment is 100% the right way to go and this card feels like it slots right in. Let’s talk about flavor, because without flavor text, this card still tells an amazing story. As long as you’re able, pick up the sword and fight. But, if you’re blessed by XYZ deity, then the blade becomes easier to wield. Fantastic. That much I like.

Where to improve: I believe that the last ability is too complex for common. It’s not that it doesn’t make sense or that it’s too powerful, but I believe that it’s asking stuff from players that they wouldn’t necessarily understand at common; it’s not immediately grokable. I like the space and I like what it’s doing. I think if you drop the cost to 1W it would be a fine uncommon. And you know what, I think I’m in the minority. I think that there will be disagreement, and I understand where that’s coming from.

@i-am-the-one-who-wololoes​ — Mummification

Things I like: I’m always a fan of cycling abilities for sure. Can’t be countered, instant-speed, powerful effects, heck yeah. I’m also a fan of finisher abilities like this. Black’s triggers for life-loss were definitely fun with those big enchantments. There aren’t a heck of a lot of common noncreature non-aura enchantments out there as precedent, but regardless, they exist.

Where to improve: Looking up precedents for this effect, I’m definitely skeptical about this at common. For one, it’s any player. For two, it’s whenever a spell is cast. For three, it’s harder to remove. All that together combined with a potential common cycling shell where you can draft a bunch of these and then make all black spells have extort? Actually, this card is almost strictly better than a two-mana enchantment with “Black spells you cast have extort.” Almost. I think this might have had to go back to the drawing board. As for the flavor, I don’t grok what the name, text, and abilities have to do with one another.

@koth-of-the-hammerpants — Coffin Devourer

Things I like: I just read the flavor text, and, uh. I love it but wow. That’s some nasty, funny, funky stuff. So! Let’s talk about the card. Perfectly serviceable in terms of getting things out of graveyards then making creatures big. There aren’t too many cards with tap abilities and vigilance at common, but they’re definitely there, so that’s okay. Man, I can’t get over that name and flavor combo. That’s really something special.

Where to improve: This card doesn’t really fit the prompt, and I think next time I’d have to reach out about something like this. Vigilance and trample go on the same line; yes, even in standard-legal sets where sometimes abilities don’t go together, because that’s mostly for starters and core sets and the like. Technically it fits the prompt, but for all practical purposes it’s a workaround that shouldn’t have been submitted as-is. Now, that’s Fair meta. The card’s totally fine on every other front, I think. You’re gonna have to decide, though, if you wanna stick with the sort of Scavenging Ooze wording or the Tome Shredder wording. I think you should go with the second, with the exile as a cost.

@mardu-lesbian​ — Rifleman Trio (JUDGE PICK)

Things I like: Huh, another card with vigilance and a tap ability. Well there we go! This card’s also got a lot going on, but it doesn’t feel like anything is at odds with itself, and is also on the upper side of being pushed without going into strictly uncommon territory. It’s got reach (“Stay on the defense, fellas!”) for blocking as it comes down, it’s got conditional vigilance (“Learn from those organized chaps!”) which encourages multicolor play but doesn’t force it, and it’s got that cool damage that is both a finisher, a pinger, and teaches a little about the combat advantage (“FIRE!”). So yeah!

Where to improve: I guess the only question would be where the rifles come from. Is this Ixalan-ian? I don’t think it super matters. This is a great commendable card.

@masternexeon​ — Bloodstarved Beast

Things I like: “Vampire beast” is one heck of a typeline. I like that part a lot, and honesty, I like weird echo costs a lot to. I’m surprised this isn’t a name already, actually! This card feels like its basis is in a lot of neat love letters to old-school Magic and high fantasy, even outside of the choice to submit with old-border.

Where to improve: The complexity of this one is definitely up there and past. Doing weird things with established mechanics that aren’t immediately grokable probably don’t belong at common. What happens when you blink it after previously paying an echo cost, a player might ask? Paying a cost for a continuous effect feels...weird, and I actually don’t know if that works within the rules. Nothing wrong with that specific echo cost, so that’s fine, but the second ability isn’t something I’d personally want at common. For the last ability, it should be “you draw a card and you lose 1 life,” see Phyrexian Rager.

@misterstingyjack​ — Flames of Anarchy

Things I like: Removal and cycling is perfectly serviceable. The cost suggests that the set has a stronger monocolor theme if the removal is costed like this, although it might just be for the slightly more powerful effect (sort of) and the ability to cycle if you don’t have the RR already. Name’s pretty darn awesome, too.

Where to improve: I know that you tried to balance it by making it only his creatures or planeswalkers, but this is still a recursive damage spell that’s asking weird things of you. What sort of set would have a sorcery-matters theme at common? What’s the as-fan? I think you had a cool idea that is indeed cool, but what you’re asking of your set and your rarity is too much than what can be provided. I don’t think this kind of recursion is what you want at common. In the shell that it’s intended to be in, I think it’s too powerful.

@morbidlyqueerious​ — Proven Sword (JUDGE PICK)

Things I like: Like I said earlier, new things with equipment and auras are totally awesome, and I fully support this kind of cost. Equipping to certain creature types for cheap makes sense to me because nine times out of ten it’s not something that’s going to be radically changing; either the creature is there or it’s not, and it’s either a Warrior or not. And that’s cool! First strike can be really powerful with that boost that you’re giving it, and if you have any other warrior or equipment strategies, then you better believe things are gonna get nasty on the field. I think this is a one-of in your pool, but it’s a fantastic one-of. Equipment can be undervalued at times!

Where to improve: I’m not 100% down with the flavor text. The blacksmith doesn’t “make” the metal, do they? They make the blade. I think that you had a good concept but it’s not exactly there yet.

@naban-dean-of-irritation​ — Physical Fluctuation

Things I like: Well, the art’s a big plus, and the flavor’s funny, so that’s pretty great. I think that common combat tricks in the GW sphere have always been a little funky, especially with Ravnica’s weird return to that again and again. There was even that green one, but searching for things that have multiple instances of “target creature” on Scryfall is such a pain.

Where to improve: Seeds of Strength is weird, but they’re all +1/+1 so at least that much makes sense, same buffing all around. Martial Glory is a little harder to grok sometimes, but it’s only up to two creatures, so that’s not the worst that can happen. If you have three creatures, then this card has a number of options that is legitimately making me worried about my ability to do simple math and statistics. The variance here in P/T distribution is off the charts. Yeah, it would make sense in-game, but just on principle, I don’t want that much at common. It’s—you know what, I’m gonna do some math. … There are at least 27 different variations if you have three creatures. I don’t think that that’s what people need at common.

@narkis24 — Unbound Devil

Things I like: Pushed P/T with drawback is totally valid. I like the fact that the “unbound” in the name refers to the fact that you can’t control it, literally, without someone holding the leash. That could make for some fun flavor things. If you’re on-curve, then you got some big beats that you can get in early.

Where to improve: I honestly wonder if it’s too much, actually. Yeah, it has to attack every time, but if you can get a one-drop then this then any removal on-curve and/or more Devils, then you’re in one crazy good spot. I think in terms of power level, this is uncommon for sure. In terms of abilities, I did a little searching, and there isn’t any precedent for non-temporary control switching at common. That’s for a good reason, IMO. Again, this is a great card, but definitely uncommon. And a good draft uncommon, too!

@nicolbolas96​ — Lost to Memory (JUDGE PICK)

Things I like: This is a really funky pauper card that also happens to have great draft function. The destruction is conditional, but on-curve you’re going to be fine with it. If there are no good targets, you can at least get a card out of their hand and deck. I think that the versatility there is awesome and that this card is definitely up there in terms of playability. And, well, it’s not that powerful. That’s a good thing! It stays at the common line while having great effects and not pushing anywhere it doesn’t need to be. Yeah, maybe the Pauper-rack meta doesn’t want it at sorcery speed, but heck, I think it’s great. Good with Chittering Rats

Where to improve: The flavor text lacks something for me. I know sometimes he asks questions, but unless they’re directed at someone specific, they tend to be either contextual to another statement or answered. I don’t know, it just doesn’t feel as...suave as Bolas usually is. It seems small but it’s a hangup for me. Feel free to up his grandiosity.

@partlycloudy-partlyfuckoff — Idyllic Falchion

Things I like: Heh, back to equipment. You know how I feel about that. Interesting sacrifice trigger. I think that that’s the strongest part of the card in terms of—well, maybe not power, but in terms of the “cool” factor and “push” factor. It’s fine for common, and it’s strong, and you need the color to cast it, so that’s awesome. And bonus points for making me look up the word “falchion” too; it helped to envision the weapon and scenario you had in mind.

Where to improve: The second ability doesn’t work. The equipment would need to be on the battlefield for the equip cost to be activated. Instead, it would read: “{cost}: Return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield attached to target creature. Activate only as a sorcery.” And that would honestly be kick-ass for like...six mana? Get that in your archives, ‘cause I like the idea a lot. As it stands, doesn’t work rules-wise.

@rasputin-gold​ — Copse Fiend

Things I like: “Copse” got me, and I like the vocab check there, very nice. I think that your typing and the general mood is really fantastic, and holy crap, look: that flavor text literally gave  me a touch of ASMR. It’s not the next great American novel, but it fits so well, and it feels great and creepy, and it tells me so much, and that, that’s awesome.

Where to improve: Let’s take all that mood and make a different card with it, because there’s...a lot going on. A four-mana 4/3 with wither would be totally fine by itself at common. GG activation for a lure? Okay, makes sense, but combined with the wither, that’s something that’s far too powerful at common, assuming a set with the mana alignment to make that happen. The assumption that you have a Forest (capital F!) to give it first strike (tertiary in black and NOT in green) and potential recursion is way too far gone. If this card were presented without rarity I would assume it was rare. So, yeah, this is one of those times where it’s not a bad card but for this contest it’s just too much. Keep it appropriate for rarity.

@reaperfromtheabyss​ — Dwarf Forge Scrapheap (JUDGE PICK)

Things I like: Well, I already talked about the clues from the winners’ post, so I’ll go out on a limb and say that yes, I like this one too. A combination of the “shifting animated pile of knobs and gears and junk that when animated can come to life and hit you in the face” with “forget this I’m gonna make mana” is pretty funny to me, in that dry card way, and this card in general is pretty cool. In terms of gameplay, yeah, you can have a beater on turn four if you really need the boost, or late in the game as a colorless source, but it’s also mana-fixing, a three-mana buttwall, and just a cool card all around. I think that this is one of those that could have great art flavored on a cool world, and the name could be changed to fit just about anything. 

Where to improve: “Add ONE mana of any color.” ONE. I’m unreasonably curmudgeonly about that error, somewhat jokingly, a little rib-nudgingly. Easy oversight, but don’t let it happen again! (Kidding, kidding, I know I need to up my editing skills too.)

@snugz​ — Sidestep

Things I like: this card. I like this card, dangit. I don’t care that it wouldn’t be very playable in a whole lot of decks or archetypes as a weird combat trick, but I like it. It’s simple and funny and plays into the “I’m gonna right myself while tripping you up” gag and that’s great. The simplicity speaks to some Rookie Mistake vibes that I’m down with.

Where to improve: Again, I don’t think it’s playable. I could see them printing this card and having it be basically draft chaff, but maybe not, maybe it’s something in a combat-trick heavy set with some radical payoff. Maybe it’s a pauper Heroic card that could make the deck tier-1. But it’s so simple that it’s hard to talk about! I’m sorry I can’t give more feedback than that, honestly. The card’s too well-made. So, with that in mind, you need to season this steak. Any flavor text for any context would be awesome.

@starch255​ — Scab-Clan Brawler

Things I like: 100%, this feels Gruul. It’s a big fighter that’s on-curve with some brutal flavor despite no flavor-text. The notion of the Gruul tribespeople fighting among themselves comes across here fantastically, and having a 3/3 trampler is definitely something that a RG drafter will want on turn three.

Where to improve: [Foreword: This is a lot of text and I swear it’s mostly not criticism; you made me think.]  Brawl needs work. A lot of work. As it stands, either you lose a small creature, you lose this one and put a +1/+1 counter on your bigger creature, or you happen to have a 2/4 that can survive. I am… I’m working this out as I’m writing, and I want to like it, and I want to improve it, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the mechanic isn’t the problem. I think it’s actually surprisingly complex, almost more complex than a Gruul player would want immediately. The choice of payoffs is so hard to think about—and at this point, I’m not so much criticizing as I am ruminating. I really want to play with this mechanic just to see if my knee-jerk “fighting your own creatures is bad, ugh” is lizard brain and if there’s galaxy brain behind it. You’ve put me in a conundrum here. Hold onto this one.

@thedirtside — River Delta

Things I like: Great name, makes sense. I can picture the landscape where you would want this place to appear. Nonbasic lands are pretty interesting to design at common, and breaking away from the Guildgate/Life-gain lands was an ambitious move.

Where to improve: I know fetchlands are weird on the scale, but in terms of probability, the ability to (1) get your colorless mana if need be OR (2) tutor for the land you need while thinning your deck and furthermore (3) getting a 3/3 body once you’ve sacrificed it later in the game… This is borderline rare and might even be pushed for an uncommon. Yes, it’s basic, but in limited that’s a non-issue and in constructed there’s nothing wrong with getting your basic lands just to make this card work for you. The part about it being tapped really isn’t that much of a massive drawback. I like this card a lot. It’s not common power level. Small notes: “shuffle your library” can just be “shuffle” IIRC, and your comma between the 3UG and Exile seems wonky.

@wilsonosgoodmcman​ — Ruthless Vigilante

Things I like: Gotta love a vampire rogue. This particular card doesn’t seem to have a home, but it doesn’t seem to be sending any mixed-messages either. Ixalan doesn’t really want the roguishness, Dominaria could have it but where’s the vigilantism, Innistrad has different colors, Ravnica has different flavors, etc. etc. So does it belong? Yes! But “were” is yet to be determined. That’s totally okay. 

Where to improve: IMO, your abilities are too strong together. Vigilance and deathtouch is a pretty powerful combo once you get yourself in a position where you can attack, because, well, then you still have a murderous blocker. There’s a reason it hasn’t appeared at common yet. The lifelink feels a bit odd, honestly, and the toughness boosting feels out of place. Why is an aggressive vigilante boosting its toughness? Actually, why does a rogue have vigilance? There’s no precedent or flavor connection there. I’m just not feeling what this card is offering me. It might play, like, fine, but it doesn’t feel good and it doesn’t feel like it has a place that couldn’t be replaced by a more cohesive card.

@wolkemesser​ — Dry Sands Summoning

Things I like: We haven’t had a real good desert world since the Abzan from KTK, and I miss that. Having a sandy feel and aesthetic could be really cool here, and I think that what you were going for what the flavor of turning the desert into, like, part of the warrior tribe. That much I like a lot.

Where to improve: I find myself a little frustrated trying to write commentary, because there’s a lot to go on here and I don’t want to be too harsh. I’m going to address the individual parts, but in general, please, please run these cards by people before submitting.

The hybrid cost is fine but that’s pushing it a little. Eventide was an exception I personally liked, but the color weight doesn’t always play well with others. That part is honestly fine.

Enchanting cards in graveyards should never currently appear at common. Spellweaver Volute is a rules nightmare/abomination. 

It would be “Enchant land or land card in a graveyard.” “Warrior” needs to be capitalized. “Enchanted land is a 3/1 Sand Warrior creature with haste. It’s still a land.”

What is the purpose of having a land also be a creature in your graveyard? At common? I can’t envision any scenario in which that would be a reasonable theme. It can’t attack from your graveyard, it would be weird for type-changing in the graveyard with Conspiracy, and it wouldn’t move it to the battlefield either.

The retrace is a decision that’s almost designed to cause confusion. So it could enchant a card in a graveyard, but not be in a graveyard, until it’s in your graveyard, whereupon you can discard a land to cast it from your graveyard, but not target a land discarded this way.

@yourrightfulking​ — Mutilated Faerie

Things I like: This name and the intention of the flavor text is almost grimdark; I’m not averse to that. I actually really like the fact that it can’t block, because it lets you have deathtouch with a little more aggression. The fact that it’s an assassin almost makes me wonder about the story of this individual character, and you know what, that means that flavorfully you’re doing something really right.

Where to improve: The “human sacrificing” part feels important to your implied set, and I don’t know how to feel about that. You get a 2/1 deathtouch body and potentially take out another faction? I mean, if this was Eldraine, this card would probably be actually sought in drafts with the human as-fan. Might be a little too powerful on that front depending on the environment. But, uh, the flavor and name? I want to like it but it’s more confusing than not. “Pixie plucking” seems like either a poaching crime or a children's game, and the reason WHY pixies are plucked could be better specified. The second sentence is a fragment. Your story implies that a plucked pixie will 100% die, but then, how did this one get mutilated? To kill the culprit, the pixie would have had to escape mutilation, and this mutilated one apparently survived a 100% kill rate? Not sure where you’re going with this. Sort it out and you’ll be fine.

And there we have it. Again, I wanna stress, I’m using my best judgement and opinions here, but people are absolutely free to disagree. I hope that the constructive portion, even if it’s something you disagree with, helps see another perspective. Lots of cards here help me see other perspectives as well, and thank you for that. Tune in for something tomorrow. What will it be? The world may never know. Or maybe it will. Or will it?

— @abelzumi​