Why is it any number(up to five)? Is the correct wording not merely: "Sacrifice up to five permanents"?

Hmm. I seem to have convinced myself that if it left play, it discarded your hand too. Perhaps that could be an acceptable added drawback, or would that make it too useless? (That if it left play/went to graveyard you would discard your hand)

This card seems sufficiently balanced in comparison with Phyrexian Arena.

I voted creature because that is where my heart led me. Also I just wanted to make a creature over those other things.

modify: I also felt that red creatures interested me more than the things red gets on enchantments/sorceries/instants.

Anusien - If you make the changes to Writ of Detinue as you said, it is basically restock. (2GG + 1 to sacrifice = 3GG = cost of restock) This would make the card rather pointless, but this is not to say the card is balanced as it is. I don't balance things, I nitpick. Like a ninja.

But look at this compared to the 3B Hell's Caretaker, which is more costly and a hell of a lot weaker than this card.

You should take Prismatic Mirror out of the current wording and replace it with the new name.

Radiance- ? I wouldn't be surprised if this card comes up in Rav at some point.

"top of owner's players library, then look at the top three cards of that library"

Should be: top of its owner's library, then look at the top three card of that player's library.

At least I think so.

Why is it "On your side" rather than "under your control"?

Wolf is still a creature type(in 8th at least, see Tundra Wolves/Lone Wolf, not sure about 9th, since I don't think those guys are in 9th).

Also, Wolves are both green or white, using the same examples as above.

If you reveal one, and then you just do it again, who's to say whether you have two of them in your hand or you're cheating?

Shouldn't this card read 'Enchanted creature has'At the beginning of your upkeep, ~this~ deals 2 damage to you.' ?

(ala relic bane)

The wording is 'a +1/+1 counter,' 'not one +1/+1 counter.'

I am the secret nitpicker! Arr.

Minor minor nitpick: Generally I believe that you reveal a card 'in your hand' rather than from your hand. See the cycle of cards in Urza's Destiny: Scent of Nightshade etc.

(Oracle text on Scent of Nightshade: "Reveal any number of black cards in your hand. Target creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X is the number of cards revealed this way.")

Okay, that makes more sense. I'm rather new at this, so sorry about my mistakes/bad card design etc. It makes a lot more sense in red, I guess.

Ephraim - Your version of the card makes a lot more sense- I suppose I'll copy the card and change the current wording around. Thanks guys.

Gambler
3W (I was trying to determine between 2W and 3W, but I think this is better for limited purposes.)
Creature - Human Soldier
WW, T: ~This~ deals two damage to target attacking or blocking creature.
W, T: Roll a die. If you rolled a six-sided-die. On a 5, ~this~ deals 5 damage to target attacking or blocking creature, otherwise, do nothing.
1/3
?

I don't think there's ever really been a gambler card, and it felt in flavour of white. I know it doesn't really make sense that a gambler deals damage to attacking creatures, but I really liked the idea. So obviously the name could be changed to something like 'Gambler Militant' to make more sense, or archer, or anything like that. I think the card has some merit on its own even if you don't get to use the secondary ability in limited. This creature was obviously designed as more of a limited card, as it does not have any real constructed value. Perhaps the First ability should be 3, T: instead of WW, T: to make it more splashable. Anyways, that's all the rambling I have for today.

Current Wording:
Gambling Fireslinger
2RR
Creature – Wizard
RR,T: Gambling Fireslinger deals 2 damager to target creature.
R,T: Flip a coin. If you win the flip, Gambling Fireslinger deals 5 damage to target creature. Otherwise, Gambling Fireslinger deals 5 damage to itself.
2/3
(temporary flavour:)The house doesn't always win.[/B]

Fixed up various strange things that my mind made me do early in the morning.

Nitpick:

Does this need to have the wording that Urborg Panther got errata'd to? (i.e. a card named farmer's grain, etc.)

Just a thought for the flavour text. Make the second sentence have the same structure as the first, because the second sentence seems awkward.

Maybe something like: The crash of the herd stirs nearby bids from their roosts, a bolt of lightning.

Or maybe not.

This version of the deck is much weaker to chalice, and preboard you lose to chalice for one, (one reason why I think Echoing Truth or something of the sort might be more useful than Chain, especially because they can chain back your oath/salvagers.)

When I took this deck to a tournament I played with a transformational sideboard into Akroma/Spirit/Blessing to up my chances against the then unrestricted Trinisphere and Chalices(Also allowing me to board chalices), and I think that helped a little bit. It also adds a little more defense against tons of removal (With things like Pristine Angel.)

Shouldn't there be a 'reveal the card' clause so your opponent knows you're not cheating? These generally appear when you have to search for specific cards/card types. I think so, anyways.

I haven't errata'd anything in my stack, which includes Uyo/Quanar and some burn spells. I find it's hard enough to set up in a multiplayer game, since there are so many removal spells, so it's not too unfair.

I also allow things like Horobi's Whisper/Betrayal of Flesh to work, and the lands aren't really permanents, so they can't be sacced to Crack the Earth or something of the sort.

I've been testing this deck for an upcoming tournament, and I've been testing Seal of Cleansing in the MD, and it's been working out well (even though I did take the idea from a post here on TMD).

One other thing I've been testing is boarding in Akroma/Spirit/Blessing to help against Trinispheres and Ground Seals and potential graveyard hate. It also lets me board in chalices against combo, since with the Salvagers chalice for one is bad.

Then again, my metagame is bad aggro decks, random control, and a few stax decks.

I'm on 18, but I don't know if I will be able to finish it, having no profiency in the needed skill for that level. Will have to ask a friend.

Yeah- the forums have helped a lot. This thing is really addictive though, and it's wasting a lot of my time. Oh well. I'm going to keep going until it gets too hard or something like that.

Yeah- I figured that one out, and subsequent ones. I'm up to level 8 now, and probably will not get further.

Level 3 is confusing the hell out of me. I can't figure out what to do. Hell, I'm surprised I found my way past level one. I think I skipped level two though.

I've only done it rarely, and only when the game is down to myself and one opponent. When there are lots of people it doesn't seem to accomplish as much.

The rule I tend to use for things concerning lands is that if a spell specifically mentions lands (i.e. Betrayal of Flesh), then you're allowed to use the nonexistant lands. However, if something mentions permanents (i.e. Crack the Earth) then you're not allowed to sacrifice lands. It gets confusing sometimes, but I like the way it works.

If you don't mind my asking, what are some examples? APNAP seems to work for my group.