General Custom Cards: The Lab

So I ended up templating it like this:

Raging Goblin.jpg

I make cards jointly with my roommates, and they liked the whole catch fire thing, so I tried to keep it in the rules text (sort of like cipher and "encoded"). The original goal was for a mechanic that was exclusively red, so the specificness of something catching fire feels alright.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Thinking of adding another dual to my cube that produces {c} as well, because 10 seems a bit short?

Flat Mountains
Land - Mountain Plains
({T}: Add {R} or {W} to your mana pool.)
Flat Mountains enters the battlefield tapped.
When Flat Mountains enters the battlefield, add {c} to your mana pool.

Sort of a reversed Crumbling Vestige?
 
Like those very much. Optionally could be a cipt reverse mainland, with {c} being the pain color? I do like reverse crumbling, but doesn't synergize well with colorless activation costs
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Like those very much. Optionally could be a cipt reverse mainland, with {c} being the pain color? I do like reverse crumbling, but doesn't synergize well with colorless activation costs
Yeah, that is a problem. It's also a land that favors non-aggro decks, which I also don't like. The list of requirements to fit this design hole (sorry Safra!) is pretty hard to meet. The new land should:

  • Be fetchable, i.e. have one or more basic land types.
  • Fix for two colors.
  • Be able to add {c} consistently.
  • Favor aggro decks, or at least don't penalize them for playing these.
  • Be aesthetically pleasing to a degree, i.e. read like a real card.
Edit: The only other option I could think of so far is this:
Alpine Meadow-alt.jpg
 
If I'm understanding correctly, those are strictly better painlands basically? You could have the city of brass 'whenever this is tapped' rider?
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
If I'm understanding correctly, those are strictly better painlands basically? You could have the city of brass 'whenever this is tapped' rider?
They're basically fetch-painlands, yes. I don't want them to be always painful though, I'm okay with them being "strictly better" than the painlands (corner cases like Tamanoa notwithstanding). I don't want my players to die to their three City of Brass limited decks because they draw the wrong opener, and this design at least meets all my stated goals (I think). I still haven't been able to think of a worthy alternative that isn't a strictly better Plateau (which I don't want), so I guess I'll try these?
 
All I'll say is that you have come out against power creep before in the mana base thread, so it seems fair to stick to trying to not bust open "strictly betters"
Because the basic lands set a baseline for power level? If you could just print things that were unconditionally better than the current baseline, the next new card has to better again to impress. This makes power creep inevitable, and power creep is not necessarily healthy for a game.

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure why you can't just use painlands? Or, a cycle of the off-colored of your cool lands with depletion counters. You have 5 pillar of land fixing, but Abzan still wants a WB land every now and again. Also you only have 10 fetchlands, but 20 fetchables. I'd lobby for 15 and 15, but it's your manabase your rules.
Anyway, my submission into "Onder needs more holes in his lands filled brainstorm":

It is a fetchable painland, but I tried to move away from the idea that both basic land types are represented on a fetchable card, since that was one of the big sticking points for me.
Iridescent Knoll.jpg
 
Another potential version I've thought up is basically a fetchable Tendo Ice Bridge for two colors. The templating gets a little icky, but it seemed to flow well enough. One problem in particular for you would be that you'd have two different lands that use depletion counters, and in different ways.... oh well.
Iridescent Knoll 2.jpg

BIG EDIT: And I'd argue that the painland variety in the post above is muuuuuch cleaner. And that it should be enemy pair based, with the colors either like below or switched (W/b etc)
pain color is small
B/w primary fetch verdant
G/r primary fetch windswept
U/g primary fetch polluted
R/b primary fetch scalding
W/u primary fetch arid

W/b primary fetch windswept
R/g primary fetch arid
G/u primary fetch verdant
B/r primary fetch polluted
U/w primary fetch scalding

The idea behind this would be that while it fits into fewer combinations of your chosen Khans, it will probably stand a better chance of making it to the intended target (B/w to the Abzan player etc) and therefore help that shard overall. It also helps when someone is totally teching you on a color pair. I'm grixis, but someone in "front" of me is RU, so I've got like 3 UB lands.... and no fixing into red. this would be aleviated with the R/b land that the UR dood doesn't want. In this instance B/r would be better so that your Polluted delta can grab it. In fact, it looks like the second set is better at getting the splash, but using the fetch the competing color for an allied slot wouldn't want as highly.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
All I'll say is that you have come out against power creep before in the mana base thread, so it seems fair to stick to trying to not bust open "strictly betters"

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure why you can't just use painlands? Or, a cycle of the off-colored of your cool lands with depletion counters. You have 5 pillar of land fixing, but Abzan still wants a WB land every now and again. Also you only have 10 fetchlands, but 20 fetchables. I'd lobby for 15 and 15, but it's your manabase your rules.
Anyway, my submission into "Onder needs more holes in his lands filled brainstorm":

It is a fetchable painland, but I tried to move away from the idea that both basic land types are represented on a fetchable card, since that was one of the big sticking points for me.
View attachment 716

Maybe I could use painlands, but my gut feeling says I want two fetchables for every fetchland. I could be wrong though, maybe a 1:1 relation is okay as well? You can always fetch a basic if need be, but at that point it doesn't really 'fix' your mana in case of color intensive cards. Also, I believe I have spoken out against lands being strictly better than basic lands(?), which the fetch-pain isn't. I'm okay with cards sometimes being better than other cards. I have the single basic type 'dual' in my own card file, with pretty much the exact same wording, but I thought it looked weird that producing {c} came at a penalty, whereas the main color was pain free.

Lastly, wow, that last post is enormous! Thanks for putting that into words. However, and I'm sorry to say this, I've already tried out the 'enemy' fixing idea in the very first iteration of my Khans of Alara cube, and it just didn't work. The two main problems were that 1) it confused the players, making them question which color pairs were supported, by sticking to fixing for the supported color pairs, I've found my drafters pick up on the supported pairs quicker, and 2) there wasn't enough fixing for the two-color decks, because some of the fixing was the wrong color and there is only so many spots I can dedicate to mana fixing. In fact, one of the complaints I got in the beginning was that I ran too much mana fixing, which was annoying during the draft to a lot of players. The reason I ran so many fixing was precisely because I wanted 'enough' fixing for the supported color pairs. In the end I decided to simply cut down on fixing, and replacing the 'enemy' fixing with fixing for the supported color pairs, and that worked a lot better.

Edit: Sheehs, it look's like I'm shooting every idea you have down, sorry for that. I really appreciate your thoughts on this!
 

Kirblinx

Developer
Staff member
I had been thinking about CML's request for a good aggressive one drop in the competition thread and was trying to think of what I could make (while driving around at work, probably no the best time to be day dreaming :p).

I like dash and what it can do for aggressive strategies so these were the ones I have come up with so far:

9UadF4Q.jpg


A creature that you can attack with on the first turn. Has a drawback so you choose to play it eventually instead of dashing all the time. Nothing fancy but helps push on that turn one that is so pivotal for aggro.

QoMY0hW.jpg


I think the art says it all :p
I could have made it just a Dark Confidant with dash, but that would make the old Confidant redundant. I think the number tweaking makes it good enough but doesn't impeach too much on the old confidants territory.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
I had been thinking about CML's request for a good aggressive one drop in the competition thread and was trying to think of what I could make (while driving around at work, probably no the best time to be day dreaming :p).

I like dash and what it can do for aggressive strategies so these were the ones I have come up with so far:

9UadF4Q.jpg


A creature that you can attack with on the first turn. Has a drawback so you choose to play it eventually instead of dashing all the time. Nothing fancy but helps push on that turn one that is so pivotal for aggro.
Should be a 2/2 Zombie and enter the battlefield tapped.








....






Just to troll your players :D
 
Edit: Sheehs, it look's like I'm shooting every idea you have down, sorry for that. I really appreciate your thoughts on this!
Don't you worry, I've gotten plenty used to it in my line of work :p. Somewhere in that pile I said your manabase your rules, and that still stands. Also conveniently how Customers and Clients work. They like their specifications :rolleyes:.

In regards to you and power creep, I was more referring to how it relates to you last statement that "power creep is not necessarily healthy for a game", and that statement applies to power creep across any front, not just basic lands.

Effectively the design decision you are making is to support the pairs over the Khans. Now maybe your drafters have gotten used to it, and know that Temple Garden + Overgrown Tomb is the way to be. As you have it, it's just that GW is the way to be, and GB is the way to be, and they can sometimes meet. And sometimes get totally hated out :eek:
XY >>> XYz

Adding an enemy cycle is detrimental to the pairs, but beneficial to the Khans, because now I can support that "z" more easily. See rants above about being locked out of my second pair. With only one cycle of five, pairs are still dominant, but khans get that third pillar of support. Incidental trapping into a bad color pair... maybe could happen, but color pairs are enforced by your cards too, especially gold ones. Again this is moot if it breaks rules/you've already tested it out apparently.
XY > XYz

An alternative might be something different entirely? Not a two color dual, but something on a different tangent. Here's something weird I brewed up last night. It's a... Transguild Core?
Lifespring Bridge.jpg

On fetchables, here's how I broke it down (I advocate for about equal on fetchables/fetches, btw). This doesn't hold so well in a long game where you might draw both your fetchables out or try to use > 2 fetches, but works pretty well most of the time:
1) G: 6, W: 5, B: 5
overgrown tomb GB
temple garden GW
windswept heath GWB
windswept heath GWB
verdant catacombs GWB
verdant catacombs GWB

2) G: 6, W: 4, B: 4
overgrown tomb GB
overgrown tomb GB
temple garden GW
temple garden GW
windswept heath GWB
verdant catacombs GWB
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Adding an enemy cycle is detrimental to the pairs, but beneficial to the Khans

Yeah, I think my cube slowly drifted away from the Khans towards the pairs being more important. I originally envisioned this cube as one where nearly everyone would end up in three colors, but that's not how the drafts turned out. Most drafters stuck to two colors. With the introduction of colorless mana, it becomes even harder to fix your mana. Effectively, one pair plus colorless already makes for a three color deck. Because I decided to cut the ULD, I moved a few interesting picks to the main cube. Currently I run 61 lands, 5 cyclers and 11 utility lands mean there's only room for 45 mana fixing lands. Exactly 10%. The free triland rule with a three-color card (of which there are now 10 left) improves that number a bit, but having only 45 lands to work with means room is very precious. I do sometimes wish there were more fetches, so maybe that is a direction I should be exploring, but at the same time, I find that there is not enough support, yet, for the colorless additions. Basically, I'm still looking for a land that helps fetches, fixes guild mana, and fills the need for colorless mana. So, yeah, a tall order :)

Executive summary: I want too much.
 
Yeah, I think my cube slowly drifted away from the Khans towards the pairs being more important. I originally envisioned this cube as one where nearly everyone would end up in three colors, but that's not how the drafts turned out. Most drafters stuck to two colors. With the introduction of colorless mana, it becomes even harder to fix your mana. Effectively, one pair plus colorless already makes for a three color deck. Because I decided to cut the ULD, I moved a few interesting picks to the main cube. Currently I run 61 lands, 5 cyclers and 11 utility lands mean there's only room for 45 mana fixing lands. Exactly 10%. The free triland rule with a three-color card (of which there are now 10 left) improves that number a bit, but having only 45 lands to work with means room is very precious. I do sometimes wish there were more fetches, so maybe that is a direction I should be exploring, but at the same time, I find that there is not enough support, yet, for the colorless additions. Basically, I'm still looking for a land that helps fetches, fixes guild mana, and fills the need for colorless mana. So, yeah, a tall order :)

Executive summary: I want too much.
Haha now that's something you don't usually hear from a paying customer :D.

Being color pair focused is perfectly fine. I think your fetchable painlands would be perfectly fine too, just really strong. It's interesting to hear that your {c} commitment is still too low, even with free Vestiges, especially if most people are in XY decks. Toss in 3 vestiges and boom, pretty much done. One interesting and related note, is there a particular reason (maybe explained somewhere in your thread) why most of your custom land ramp fetches out basic forests? Without the evolving wilds/rampant growth angle, my {c} section would be much harder to grok. This focuses my {c} in green a bit, but maybe that's ok.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Haha now that's something you don't usually hear from a paying customer :D.

Being color pair focused is perfectly fine. I think your fetchable painlands would be perfectly fine too, just really strong. It's interesting to hear that your {c} commitment is still too low, even with free Vestiges, especially if most people are in XY decks. Toss in 3 vestiges and boom, pretty much done. One interesting and related note, is there a particular reason (maybe explained somewhere in your thread) why most of your custom land ramp fetches out basic forests? Without the evolving wilds/rampant growth angle, my {c} section would be much harder to grok. This focuses my {c} in green a bit, but maybe that's ok.

There aren't that many colorless cards, but if you're gunning for them you should be able to get a few. You'ld probably really like to hit that {c} on turn 4 for most of the cards, 5 at the latest. Borrowing, again, from Karsten's excellent article, that means you want 7 {c} sources in your 40 card deck. At the same time, you also want to hit your other two colors starting on turn 2, needing 9 sources of each. Crumbling Vestige is awesome in moderation, but once you have to add five or six to get to the 7 {c} sources you'll start getting into trouble casting your normal spells. The easiest solution to this is adding more guild + {c} fixing. I think I'll end up using the fetchable pains and just accept that they're really good.

The reason all my green spells look for basic Forests is that I want to avoid the 5-color green good stuff deck in a cube with a higher percentage of strong gold cards. Green's role, as I envision it in my cube, is ramping out threats, not fixing mana. I think I first espoused this idea in a completely unrelated (to my cube anyway) thread, probably the Manabase thread? The side benefit is that I was able to push these spells a bit more. I basically took the color fixing aspect of Rampant Growth (variants) and replaced it with other "small" benefits, like scry 2. Which, by the way, is super awesome on a ramp spell!
 
That article is great but I think overestimates on a bit, and leads to some really problematic situations if fully followed. This is also a good time to talk about fetches. And to have fun over analyzing stuff that should be in the mana base thread. Here goes!
I drafted a theoretical Jund deck in a cube with only non-fetches (shocks, duals etc). I want green T1 for dorks, black T2 for Bob, and red later for spot removal and reach. 10 green, 9 black, 7 red (assuming all one mana symbol). My mana base ends up looking like:
Capture.JPG
That's 9 non-basics! At the minimum! For 8 drafters this cube would need 70 non basics to enable everyone to comfortably be three colors. Now, if the cube says na, sometimes ya gotta be two colors, that changes things. Two colors is only 2-3 nonbasics depending. Assuming half and half... cuz yeah: 3*4 + 9*4 = 48 (50)
Eight at 3 is only 24, if everyone goes XY, so this is between 70 and 24 theoretically.....
A good way to alleviate this is with 3 color lands (fetches). With equal access, two color is unaffected, but 3 color drops to 6 (see below). 3* 4 + 6*4 = 36 (40)! Yay :D, fetches have reduced my nonbasic load by 25%! That's very significant. But lets be real. With 8 drafters, there's almost no way to stay out of each others hair. If two people want GW, there are only 8 or so to go between them, and someone can easily yank a windswept leaving 7. Now with three people in GW??? (say one abzan). Yikes. Basically the more fetches you have in your environment, up to the point that there are no longer enough fetchables for people, your manabase will be more robust and easier to make as your number requirements drop.
Capture2.JPG

And lets talk about his entirely arbitrary "definition" of consistently. 90%? "mostly a product of experience and intuition" Ah, very scientific of you Frank. If he had game playout data with his experience saying that 90% was where performance was maximized, I'd be ok. But think about it at the lowest end. You, at miminum, need to perform well 66% of the time. So why not pick that? Well, thats cutting it close... but what about consistently hit it 1 out of 5 games, 80%? Why 1 out 10 game flop? Especially for splash colors, it seems like 90% is very arbitrary and high. If you only have 2 of those cards, your entire hand shouldn't have that color... ever, so why such a high margin? A well constructed deck will have other things to do on Turn X. Bringing the ridiculousness of the 2 mana symobls into this... one Courser of Kruphix and Yavimaya Elder in the deck immediately bumps the green requirements up to 13 sources, which makes the nonbasic count now 12 or 8, respectively non-fetch fetch. That's 85 or 60 lands required. Like, most of our cube decks just... dont work according to his article. We've got 5 non-basics, 7 CC cards and we're like "yeah this deck was awesome, it performed strongly and got beat only by a sligh deck" etc etc. We should be falling far short.... but aren't? I dunno, seems sketchy.

TL;DR: I say go equal fetchables/fetches as the core of you fixing, and also maybe not follow articles letter by letter? Who knows.
 
I like a higher density of fetches than fetchables if I want my colours fixed early, and more duals than fetches if I plan to go into the long game (to keep hitting land drops mostly). Usually I want more fetches than duals though since every B/x fetch is your black dual land if you need it to be, so the Scrubland will be 'in' a greater percentage of your opening hands.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
That article is great but I think overestimates on a bit, and leads to some really problematic situations if fully followed.

...

TL;DR: I say go equal fetchables/fetches as the core of you fixing, and also maybe not follow articles letter by letter? Who knows.

Oh, I'm not saying you should follow that article to the t, but it remains a very good indication on where you want to end up. And I think 90% is actually a very good number. 66% is not nearly enough. At that figure you would lose 34% of your matches to mana screw, and then some of your matches because you can't win every game, quite possibly putting you below 50%. And losing a full third of your matches to mana screw is really, really frustrating! So, I always try to make sure player can at least approximate these numbers, for single colored cards at least. I cut all of the CC cards from my cube as well, because you need a ridiculous amount of fixing to reliably cast those things on turn 2 in two or three color decks. So, yeah, don't fully follow it, but try to get as close as conceivably possible.

Also, what if I try to tackle my problem from another angle? I would like more fetches, I would like more colorless fixers, why not combine those instead of trying to make the "perfect" dual? Does this look at all printable?

Seaside Campfire.jpg

I'ld probably still need to run the fetchable pains this way, but 10 original fetches, 10 of these fetches, 10 shocklands, and 10 fetchable pains gets me at a very respectable 20 colorless fixing lands while upping the fetch count from 10 to 20 and keeping the fetchables count at 20! Or am I crazy and is this asking for trouble?
 
It could be printed, I'm sure. Again, ridiculously strong, but meh. Why not make it have a mana investment instead of the weird tapped clause. Kinda like the Panoramas?

I'm liking your plan very much as laid out :) . I think there will be more consistency to this more even matched base.

You cutting all the CC cards is interesting. Enabling more decks, or artificially creating design holes that don't really need to be there? All I'm saying is you prescribe to 1 source very readily, and while 66% is definitely low, why not 80%? He never touched on that, and I'm not going through that math right now o_O . Most of our cubes and decks diverge far and wide from that article, but still end up ok. You seem to be looking for an extremely high consistency in manabases. Aoret's approach might be something to be thinking about, or switching out crumbling vestige for... Tendo Ice Bridge? It's actually very close to the same concept, but you can choose when to use the "ETB".
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
It could be printed, I'm sure. Again, ridiculously strong, but meh. Why not make it have a mana investment instead of the weird tapped clause. Kinda like the Panoramas?
Because I want aggro decks to be able to fix on turn 1 to cast their one drops.

I'm liking your plan very much as laid out :) . I think there will be more consistency to this more even matched base.

You cutting all the CC cards is interesting. Enabling more decks, or artificially creating design holes that don't really need to be there? All I'm saying is you prescribe to 1 source very readily, and while 66% is definitely low, why not 80%? He never touched on that, and I'm not going through that math right now o_O . Most of our cubes and decks diverge far and wide from that article, but still end up ok. You seem to be looking for an extremely high consistency in manabases.
I aim for that, realizing that I will never get at the numbers he mentions. Aspiring perfect as possible mana bases given that I'm maintaining a playable cube that wants to consist of more than mana fixing is where I'm at, I think :)

Aoret's approach might be something to be thinking about, or switching out crumbling vestige for... Tendo Ice Bridge? It's actually very close to the same concept, but you can choose when to use the "ETB".

I actually looked at Tendo Ice Bridge pretty much the next day after the prerelease, but have you seen its price? That used to be a bulk rare! I have four, but I'm not ready to shell for (at least) 20 more to add to the basic land pile. Also, the {c} symbol is missing on TIB, so I guess my drafter's will have to put up with Crumbling Vestige for the moment ;)

Ok, gotta scoot. Squash matches are awaiting!
 
Not every land needs to be as good at fixing for "aggro". You still have 30 lands that hit that, and XY aggro, as I've analyzed, only needs 3 fixing lands. If you do put mana investment, it could easily become 5 panoramas-without-the-basic-and-tapped-clause to match your khans

just print more TIB? I'm assuming you freely do this for customs.

Anyway, here's some word salad lol.
Crumbling Ice Bridge.jpg
 
Oh, I'm not saying you should follow that article to the t, but it remains a very good indication on where you want to end up. And I think 90% is actually a very good number. 66% is not nearly enough. At that figure you would lose 34% of your matches to mana screw, and then some of your matches because you can't win every game, quite possibly putting you below 50%. And losing a full third of your matches to mana screw is really, really frustrating! So, I always try to make sure player can at least approximate these numbers, for single colored cards at least. I cut all of the CC cards from my cube as well, because you need a ridiculous amount of fixing to reliably cast those things on turn 2 in two or three color decks. So, yeah, don't fully follow it, but try to get as close as conceivably possible.

Also, what if I try to tackle my problem from another angle? I would like more fetches, I would like more colorless fixers, why not combine those instead of trying to make the "perfect" dual? Does this look at all printable?

View attachment 724

I'ld probably still need to run the fetchable pains this way, but 10 original fetches, 10 of these fetches, 10 shocklands, and 10 fetchable pains gets me at a very respectable 20 colorless fixing lands while upping the fetch count from 10 to 20 and keeping the fetchables count at 20! Or am I crazy and is this asking for trouble?

Love the "weird tap clause". The land entering tapped gives the fetch a real reason to tap for colorless too. Its possible the land would be good enough if even basics enter tapped. It would still be a much better (although only 2 color on its own) panorama variant.

Super cool
 
Long time lurker, here's two I'm mildly proud of, but are mostly balanced for formats other than cube.

Corrupt%2BBureaucrats.jpg


Addendum: This was a card that was designed for a friend who asked for a commander that had 4 colour identities. This is what came to mind, though it's not Legendary. (As a side note, every 2 colour pair is automatically shafted into Ravnica flavour as default in my head canon). Obviously this leans heavily on the safer side rather than obnoxiously powerful, but I'm sure others can add P/T to taste.

Etherain%2BHeart%2Bof%2BWinter.jpg


There are some members of my play group who play a lot more Dota than they do Magic, so this was more for them. For those confused about the flavour-sorta-fail of "nontoken", it's more again playing safer for balancing in modern Cube environments.
 
Some Skulk-related designs I got in my head after the SOI leak. I really like it as a unifying creature mechanic for Dimir. Most of these are intentionally draft-set common/uncommon power level, but numbers could be tweaked to fit into stronger cubes.

Shadowmage Initiate - {1}{U}
Creature - Human Wizard
Skulk
Whenever Shadowmage Initiate deals combat damage to an opponent, the next noncreature spell you cast this turn costs {1} less to cast.
1/2

Shadowmage Archivist - {1}{U}
Creature - Human Wizard
Skulk (This creature cannot be blocked by creatures with greater power.)
Whenever Shadowmage Archivist deals combat damage to an opponent, you may draw a card. If you do, discard a card.
1/2

Mesmerizing Geist - {2}{U}
Creature - Spirit
Skulk (This creature cannot be blocked by creatures with greater power.)
{2}{U} : Mesmerizing Geist gets +1/-1 until end of turn.
1/4

Infiltrator's Secret - {1}{U}
Instant
As an additional cost to cast Infiltrator's Secret, return an unblocked attacking creature you control to its owner’s hand.
Draw two cards.

Falkenrath Brigand - {1}{B}
Creature - Vampire Rogue
Skulk (This creature cannot be blocked by creatures with greater power.)
Whenever Falkenrath Brigand attacks, each opponent loses 1 life.
1/1

Cowardly Graverobber - {2}{B}
Creature - Human Rogue
Skulk (This creature cannot be blocked by creatures with greater power.)
When Cowardly Graverobber deals combat damage to an opponent, look at the top card of your library. You may put that card into your graveyard.
When Cowardly Graverobber dies, you may return another target creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
1/2

Relentless Geist - {2}{B}
Creature - Spirit
Skulk, persist
2/2

Cunning Bloodsire - {3}{B}
Creature - Vampire
Skulk, lifelink
2/3


 
Top