Weekend Art ChallengeGreetings, artisans! Click through to see this weekend's art and the design requirements for your single card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, and everyone is encouraged to give feedback. You may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times, though only the version rendered will be included in the review, if someone volunteers to render the cards.
Design a common artifact that's part of a cycle that would replace the banners in Khans of Tarkir. It should appeal to new/casual players and help them play three-color decks. Bonus points if it appeals to / helps them more than experienced/skilled players.
Jeskai Spire
ReplyDelete3
Artifact - Common
T: Add R, W, or U to your mana pool.
Lands you control have "T: Add R, W, or U to your mana pool."
A limited Chromatic Lantern for each wedge would probably suffice. The idea is that it would help newer players more than experienced players because it helps light splashes (aka the "keeping two guild options open" strategy) less than it helps the "take every gold card in the guild I want to play" strategy, unlike the current banners.
I seem to remember Chromatic Lantern being more popular among LSPs, so hopefully this will appeal to the same demographic.
I think this is both too strong and too complex for common. The fact that this makes casting double and even triple color depth cards trivial is a bit too much.
DeleteKeep in mind how high a pick Mystic Monastery is. This makes all your lands Mystic Monastaries.
You have a flawed premise re: the development side. A land that tapped painlessly for any color would be a multi-format all-star, but Chromantic Lantern saw no more than fringe Standard play, and was a middling pick in Limited. Making triple color depth cards in one wedge trivial to cast is exactly what LSPs need - wasting an entire turn to cast a Banner and STILL not having the mana to cast your spells is a huge feel-bad moment for newbies.
Delete3 mana for a mana rock will always be at best a fringe playable unless you start tacking ridiculous benefits to it, and this hardly qualifies.
I'm not as sure whether it's too complex or not - it's the least complex of the different designs I was considering but you are right that that doesn't make it simple enough to be common. This is probably an uncommon cycle.
This is crazy effective color fixing. This would make 5-color decks much easier and more common.
DeleteThe fact that this still costs {3} does limit its value in this format, but these would change Khans draft entirely.
To be clear, I wasn't saying anything about standard, just about limited. The reason Chromatic Lantern didn't have a huge impact on limited was that it was a single rare, and by the time it was a gold block (in DGR), it was being drafted in the last pack, so it could hardly have much impact. It is a fundamental law of limited that you can't warp your deck too much around a single card.
DeleteIf, on the other hand, it was 5 commons you could count on getting, that would warp the limited environment entirely.
The key sticking point for me was that this card had to cost less than 3 mana. The Banners are problematic because they fight with morphs, and hitting land drops #3 and #5 are especially important. Turn 1 tends to be the domain of the ETBT lifegain lands, so 2cmc it was:
ReplyDeleteAbzan Monolith 2
Artifact - Common
Abzan Monolith enters the battlefield tapped.
T, Sacrifice Abzan Monolith: Search your library for a basic Plains, Swamp, or Forest card and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Woo strictly worse Mycosynth Wellspring! The ETBT is intended to help out LSPs by giving them at least one additional draw step to make informed decisions about what land they'd like to get. I also wanted to distinguish it from artifacts like Traveler's Amulet and Armillary Sphere by not tacking a mana cost onto the activation, so that LSPs aren't unduly punished for tapping out.
More to the point, perhaps, worse than Traveler's Amulet.
DeleteTotally cool with something worse than Amulet since that fixes any color. I do think this would be fine without ETBT.
DeleteI should have clarified my statement wasn't intended as a complaint, strictly worse versions definitely have their place!
DeleteI think that, with the ETBT, this could safely fetch to the battlefield rather than the hand. At least on power-level grounds.
DeleteOn the other hand, a cycle like this at common would cause a lot of shuffling, and R&D's pretty down on shuffling these days for good reason.
Note that fetching to the battlefield tapped is actually not always better, you might want to play it. Fetching to the battlefield untapped makes this too close in power level to Rampant Growth.
DeleteI think the premise of this challenge is flawed in a couple ways. One is that I don't think KTK needs better color fixing, but two is that I think the Banners do an excellent job helping LSP fix mana, because (unlike other cycles) the name of the wedge is actually on the card. Also, only LSPs ever play them (with few exceptions), so they certainly help them more than experienced players.
ReplyDeleteI know your gut reaction is "but that makes it a trap, it makes LSPs worse off if good players would never play the cards," but I don't think that is true. Rather, I think the banners are there for LSPs who don't realize how high they have to take mana fixing, so that at least they get something. In other words, I think Banners are the perfect card for this spot.
If we make the new replacement significantly better than banners, then they won't get to the new players.
All that said, here is an alternative:
Jeskai Prism 2
Artifact - (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, draw a card.
1, T: Add R, W, or U to your mana pool.
Point taken.
DeleteThanks for making a neat entry anyhow.
Agreed with all of Tommy's points. I kind of feel like this challenge might be a misfire; I'll try to come up with something good though and not just the first thing that comes to mind : )
DeleteThere's tons of room to submit a well-designed mana rock.
DeleteAbzan Borderpost 3
ReplyDeleteArtifact (c)
If you cast a colorless spell this turn, you may return a land you control to its owner's hand instead of paying CARDNAME's mana cost.
T: Add W, G, or B to your mana pool.
Too parasitic? I originally wanted to reduce its mana cost by the CMC of the colorless spell (also betting on colorless spells coming up more later in Khans block), but I don't think that actually works with morph.
I would prefer "If you control a face down creature you may..." but even then this card doesn't really fit together for me.
DeleteI think that the design of the banners within Khans actually struck a perfect balance. So I don' really agree with the premise of the challenge but here are a few ideas I have:
ReplyDeleteSultai Placard 2
Artifact (C)
Face down creatures you control have: 1, T: Add B, G or U to your mana pool.
Power level wise, this is much worse than a banner. Remember that, even in Conflux (the five color set), Mana Cylix was basically unplayable.
DeleteIf I changed this from a cyclix to a ramp what do people think?
DeleteAbzan Pylon 2
Artifact (C)
Face down creatures you control have: "T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool."
It is generally bad for a card to be common if having multiple of them does nothing.
DeleteAlso, this is super conditional on also having a morph, so I think this is still significantly below the banners power level wise.
Your concerns are easily addressed by making it tap itself.
Deleteeg:
Abzan Conduit [1]
Artifact (C)
T, Tap target face down creature you control: Add W, B or G to your mana pool.
I've reduced the mana cost further as the inclusion of the enter tapped lands means that a player may not always have 2 mana available on turn 2. Considering conditional this is I wonder if a single card like this that can produce any color would be helpful in making the 5 color deck not be so terrible in KTK draft.
The HOURGLASS symbol means, "Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery." I made the whole cycle, but my entry is Mardu since I think it best fits the art:
ReplyDeleteMardu Aviary (COM) 3
Artifact
T: Add R, W, or B to your mana pool.
HOURGLASS — RWB, T: Sacrifice NAME: Put a 3/4 white Bird creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
If anyone's interested, the other effects are:
Abzan: Put three 1/1 white Warrior creature tokens onto the battlefield, then put a +1/+1 on target creature you control.
Jeskai: Put a 2/2 blue Monk creature token with prowess onto the battlefield. Draw a card, then discard a card.
Sultai: Put four 1/1 green Snake creature tokens onto the battlefield. Put the top four cards of your library into your graveyard.
Temur: Put a 4/4 green Bear creature token onto the battlefield.
These aren't commons. I'm pretty sure these are rares.
DeleteEven given that, I think they're still pretty texty, having multiple unrelated abilities. I do appreciate the effort to reuse some of the existing tokens rather than making new ones.
If Uncommon can get Keyrunes, which alternate between mana sources and creatures at will, Common should be able to get mana sources that can sacrifice for a token. I also designed these to be at a power level comparable to the three color common morph creatures. Looking at them again, I think the sac effects should cost more than 3 CMC, because they all give you the equivalent of a 4/4 creature, but I don't find the textiness of Abzan, Jeskai, or Sultai is a problem. The hourglass symbol would save us a ton of space don't forget.
DeleteI think part of the issue with the textiness is that a cycle of manarocks is usually a place we can save on text and recognition - different wedges may value them differently, but once you've seen one, the cumulative mindspace is very small. To print
Deletethese, we would have to make up that simplicity elsewhere (which is doable, but is still a cost). As for these, I feel like I like the Mardu one, but once we get to the Sultai trigger it does feel a little messy. I would definitely be more comfortable with a higher cost on the sacrifice.
DeleteThe other issue is how similar these are to a morph being played - it's a three colorless mana downpayment for a fairly generic effect, that gets you a Real Creature for a later colored payment. That redundancy might be very nice in some sets, but it feels like Khans may have enough of that already.
For rarity considerations, compare to Gargoyle Castle, Grove of the Guardian, Hellion Crucible.
DeletePasteur, I was also thinking they may be too redundant with the morph creatures already taking up 5 slots. Especially when I considered changing the scar costs to 3ABC. But I just want to play with them and see if they feel different. Looks can be deceiving. They seem fun. And unlike the three color common morphs, they attract new players to them with cool sac effects while mana smoothing at the same time.
DeleteTommy, those are all lands. They cost nothing to put into play. How are they comparable or show that these should be Rare?
I don't think these should be rare for power level reasons, and if that was the case, they are certainly knobby enough to fix that. I think they are rare for complexity reasons, and Gargoyle Castle et al are simpler than these cards. Keep in mind the common gold morph cycle is already pulling tons of complexity points at common [they would all be uncommon if they hadn't been pushed to common].
DeleteAlso note that a common flier as big as a 3/4 is an incredibly oddity in and of itself (one of the many things weird about Abomination of Guduul). Making tokens, especially non-square tokens, with abilities is far more complicated than you're giving it credit for.
I think creature tokens are a more attractive payoff for new and casual players than cycling a card. And recently I've noticed Rare token making cards have tokens that are hard to get hands on. (Heliod's Cleric, Sorin's Vampire, Master of Waves' Elemental, Wingmate Roc's Bird). So I really wanted to use existing tokens. A 3/4 flier isn't the norm, but it matches up really well in power level with the 4/4 Bear that I like using it.
DeleteYou can disregard my other four designs since they are just clouding the issue. The Mardu Aviary is my official submission and I think it's really clean and simple. I disagree that it's overly complex. I think token making IS simple. If it wasn't, we wouldn't see it so often at common. I was trying to make effects that matched a 3/4 flier and a 4/4 Bear. I missed the mark, and got overly complex, but it was just a first stab. Because those attempts were complex, doesn't mean the cycle itself is unwieldy or doomed to get 99'ed.
Anyway, here's the submission with a better Sac cost:
Mardu Aviary (COM) 3
Artifact
T: Add R, W, or B to your mana pool.
HOURGLASS — 3RWB, T: Sacrifice NAME: Put a 3/4 white Bird creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
In THS block WOTC was a little more comfortable printing non-square tokens at common, even with abilities: there is a 1/3 reach and a 2/3 haste, though they have also said they went a bit overboard with tokens in Journey to Nyx (where both of those are from). I bet this was Ethan's influence.
DeleteThese are pretty exciting! I like the designs, as I would prefer to have a token than a card in Limited most of the time. Especially if I'm the player who's been making tempo disadvantage plays all game (ie playing mana rocks).
DeletePower level I think they're a bit too high (a lot of power & toughness for a common). You probably want to make 3/3s rather than 4/4s (make a 2/2 flyer instead of a 3/4 etc..) but that doesn't affect the strength of the design too much.
Inspired by Sphere of the Suns and Pristine Talisman without being strictly better than either. Making it a 2-drop so it doesn't replace your first morph play, which is truly why the banners are so bad in this set.
ReplyDeleteAbzan Cenotaph
2
Artifact
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add W, B, or G to your mana pool. You gain 1 life.
I think this is far too strong. This is not better than Signets, but it's not much worse either, and like the signets I think these would be taken highly even off-color and never get around to the unskilled players.
DeleteFor reference, remember that "not better than signets" is not a good bar, because Signets are deemed to powerful for the Legacy cube and only appear in the Holiday Cube (with Moxen).
DeleteFurther, I'm not really convinced these aren't better than the Signets (though I agree they're not strictly better).
Also note, development has said they aren't willing to reprint the Fire Diamond cycle because it is too warping of standard, and this is much, much better than that cycle.
You're wrong about the reason for Signets not being in the Legacy Cube. They were taken out of that cube because they were encouraging people to walk into the trap of trying to build the heavy artifact deck, which isn't actually viable in the Legacy Cube. Randy Buehler talked about this on a recent Limited Resources podcast. (I think two shows ago.)
DeleteSignets are very strong, and warp any normal draft format they appear in (they are taken highly even off-color, as I mentioned), but it wouldn't be surprising to see them in a future Modern Masters edition.
I don't think the Diamond cycle is too good for Standard. The last 5 years have seen reprints of cards like Lightning Bolt, Rancor, Thoughtseize, Mana Leak, and, uh...well, I guess White hasn't had one.
DeleteMy point, though, is that cards don't exist in a vacuum. Lightning Bolt warps the format in that 3-toughness creatures are now slightly worse and 4-toughness creatures are now slightly better, etc.
The Signets are too good because they don't ETB tapped, so you can use them immediately, so they're effectively 1-mana ramp cards if you have something to spend the mana on that turn. If you have 3 mana open you can cast a Signet and another 2-drop. Even Green's mana elves aren't that fast, thanks to summoning sickness.
On a list of "top 10 mana rocks," even assuming we were only counting each cycle as one entry, I doubt the Diamonds would even make the list.
Development says that they are, and I'm inclined to believe them over you. My guess is that it would enable control too well while being very bad in aggro and mediocre in midrange, and this would limit viable format diversity.
DeleteAnd how many things would actually beat the Diamonds? There's the totally-busted early-Magic versions, obviously, and I think they stretch past the top 10: Moxen, Sol Ring, Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, Metalworker, Basalt Monolith, Grim Monolith, Mox Diamond... , that's 8. Add to the 'obviously unfair' list Chrome Mox and maybe Mox Opal. Worn Powerstone and Thran Dynamo aren't blatantly obviously unfair, but are absolutely overpowered.
But once you get past those to the reasonable ideas, what's the actual competition? The Signets, and the Mirrodin Talismans, are clearly better. Gilded Lotus, Coalition Relic, Mind Stone, and maybe Darksteel Ingot, Prismatic Lens, or Chromatic Lantern, are comparable. Do the Myr count? The pieces of Ramos, the Cameos, the Obelisks, the Keyrunes, the Cluestones, the Borderposts, and the Banners are all clearly worse. Commander's Sphere is better in it's venue, but that's an unfair comparison.
Basically, of the remotely-fair mana rocks, the Diamonds are definitely up there. If they were reprinted, they'd be in the top-10 of Modern for sure, and probably crack the top 5.
This has been on blogatog a bunch of times, but here is a source that development things the Diamond cycle is too good for standard:
Deletehttp://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/57543040537/is-marble-diamond-et-al-too-powerful-by-todays
Signets in cube, and their high power level, and whether or not to include them, have been a huge debate since long before Randy Buehler started working on the legacy cube (which is great, by the way).
What makes designing mana rocks so difficult is that 2 mana colorless ramp is basically always too strong (even for constructed), and then at 3 mana it ends up being basically unplayable (even in limited).
Emphasis on "currently" there. Development thinks the Diamonds are too good for *this* Standard. You can't tell me with a straight face that the Diamonds would have more of an impact on Standard than stuff like Thoughtseize, Cavern of Souls, Mutavault, or any of the other 4-of $20 utility cards we've seen recently.
DeleteAlso, please don't make the argument "Development says they're too good, therefore you're wrong." That helps no one. We're here to have discussion and become better designers, not score points against one another.
DeleteI think, given the number of times Mark has said this, you misunderstand the sense of "currently." There is a reason that WOTC hasn't reprinted this cycle in a long time, and the reason is they feel it is too powerful. You may disagree with them, but there it is. Obviously development philosophy changes over time (see 2/1's for R that can't block), but I find it easier to take development's word as gospel on this kind of thing. I've won zero pro tours. You're welcome to go read all of Mark's other posts about it.
Delete"Therefore you're wrong" is not really the correct tone, a better interpretation is that we have clear guideposts about what is and isn't okay, power level wise, with mana rocks. As I said below, the Diamonds on one side are too good, and Manalith on the other is too bad. This leaves, unfortunately, very little wiggle room, and it is in that context that I presented the information.
Note that, if you dig a bit and read more about R&D's philosophy about 2 mana mana stones, it isn't an individual one they fear, but rather having a whole cycle of them. Coldsteel Heart might be okay, for example, but if players have access to 8+ on color Diamonds, they can play efficient ramp decks without Green. Remember, Rampant Growth is supposed to be a major draw for Green.
As to impact on Standard, I think cards can easily be too good for standard without being as powerful as cards that are perfectly fine for standard. I've said why I think Diamonds/Signets/Etc are bad for standard above, but I'll give another example, one that comes up on forums all the time. Stone Rain is not more powerful than the most powerful cards in standard, and I don't think anyone would argue it is. And yet, Stone Rain is too good for standard. Why? Because the existence of decks that play it would block out many other decks, wishing to cast more expensive cards, and the addition of this card would actually restrict the available deck archetypes.
Printing strong colorless cards that do things colors specialize in is one of the most dangerous things we can do to the color pie, and is as great a risk to the game's health as Mark's behated hornets. I think with mana rocks it is particularly difficult to see because the effects are so subtle, and because there is such a long history of overpowered mana rocks that us folks who've been playing a long time (which I assume you have) have to be careful, since we remember lots of mana rocks that are too good by today's standards.
[For the record, I don't think WOTC is too shy about admitting that Thoughtseize, Thragtusk and Cavern of Souls were mistakes.]
"You can't tell me with a straight face that the Diamonds would have more of an impact on Standard than stuff like Thoughtseize, Cavern of Souls, Mutavault"
DeleteI absolutely can and do. Good mana's effect is subtle, but large.
I think bringing back the Diamonds would be a major incursion of green's slice of the color pie. Also, the effect of moving Wraths from 4 to 5 mana is negated if control decks can cast a good mana rock on turn 2.
DeleteIt's perhaps worth noting that the power level of expensive creatures is miles above what it was when those rocks were last legal in Standard.
Mardu Reliquary 2
ReplyDeleteArtifact
When Mardu Reliquary enters the battlefield, you gain 2 life and draw a card.
1, T: Add R, W, or B to your mana pool.
----
It's hard to get something that's actually better for new players, since many of the things they do by mistake are done in Khans Limited on purpose by the 5-color strategy (bad mana, gaining life), and it takes Signet-level cards to jump beyond Limited.
Note this is my design with "you gain two life" added to it.
DeleteIndeed it is; I hadn't seen your design at the time. Yours is strictly worse than Prophetic Prism, though, so I think the lifegain, which helps it hit the target more effectively, is a beneficial difference.
DeleteI'm not surprised there was a collision here anyway; mana rock design space is not that large, especially since Khans rocks need to sit at {2} or {4} to play nicely with the set themes, and {4} requires a pretty powerful effect to be a respectable mana rock.
Only strictly worse than Prophetic Prism if you're playing other colors! But yes, I named mine Prism in honor of Prophetic Prism, one of my favorite cards. Prophetic Prism is definitely good enough to print cards that are strictly worse than it and still be in a good place.
DeleteI'm not offended by the 2 life addition, but it adds extra complexity and bookkeeping that I don't think is needed, but I wouldn't be shocked if WOTC printed this exactly as is, so good job (and great minds and all that).
Abzan Fortress (3)
ReplyDeleteArtifact
T: Add W, or B, or G to your mana pool and gain 1 life.
I was trying to think of something that would appeal more to new players, and this fits, I think, but I think it's bad. It's not great and it would only slow the format even more.
I think another possibility could be, it gives mana and a 2/2 colorless creature.
The problem is new players typically undervalue mana fixing on lands and overvalue it on nonlands.
I am not sure. It's an interesting challenge. I think I'd need to understand in what way the Banners don't appeal to new players.
If you want a 2/2 and mana, you could just have this:
DeleteMorphy Abzan Stony 3
T: Add W, B, or G to your mana pool.
Morph 2
---
Also note your card is strictly better than Pristine Talisman, which is already a very good card that even sees significant cube play. It would be a deck to just draft them all and gain so much life no one could race it.
I had no idea Pristine Talisman was a good card!
DeleteAlso - the picture is beautiful this week.
ReplyDeleteIt is!
DeleteAgreed. I'll do the renders this week.
DeleteMy first thought was Prophetic Prism for wedges, but it looks like that has already been done here.
ReplyDeleteAbzan Petroglyph 2
Abzan Petroglyph enters the battlefield tapped unless you pay 1.
T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool.
Note this is strictly better than, say, Charcoal Diamond and development feels reprinting the Charcoal Diamond cycle would be too good for standard.
DeletePut another way, compare this to Rampant Growth, a spell which consistently finds a place in cube and standard. Rampant Growth is a Green card that does Green things. This is considerably better than Rampant Growth.
Hmm. Are banners that you can cycle for free going to be worth it?
DeleteAbzan Petroglyph V2 3
T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool.
T, Sacrifice Abzan Petroglyph: Draw a card.
Doesn't fit the art too well, but:
DeleteDunerest Guardian 3
Artifact Creature - Golem (C)
T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool.
2/2
Sort of like really big Myr. Feels uncommon-ish, but seems fairly printable at common in the right set (like Khans).
The awkward thing is that a straight up mana rock is a little too good at 2, and garbage at 3, so we're stuck at 2 with a drawback and 3 with an upside when it wants to be somewhere in the middle. A few more ideas:
DeleteAbzan Petroglyph V3 2
Artifact (C)
Abzan Petroglyph V3 enters the battlefield tapped and doesn't untap during your next untap step.
T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool.
Abzan Petroglyph V4 2
Artifact (C)
T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool. You may only add mana of a color a land you control couldn't produce.
Abzan Petroglyph V5 3
Artifact (C)
You may reveal that land cards in your hand or lands you control cannot produce at least two of W, B or G instead of paying Abzan Petroglyph V5's mana cost.
T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool.
Not really sure how to cost, word or actually execute the ability on that one, but it's some sort of an idea.
Temur Monument 2
ReplyDeleteArtifact (C)
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Ferocious — If you control a creature with power 4 or greater, CARDNAME gains :
T: Add G, U or R to your mana pool.
On second thought, would it be better if it entered the battlefield tapped ?
DeleteIt's very strong even with the ETBT clause, so yes.
DeleteWhat would the rest of the cycle look like?
The cycle could look like that :
DeleteTemur Monument 2
Artifact (C)
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Ferocious — If you control a creature with power 4 or greater, CARDNAME gains :
T: Add G, U or R to your mana pool.
Sultai Monument 2
Artifact (C)
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T, Exile a card from your graveyard: Add B, G or U to your mana pool.
Jeskai Monument 2
Artifact (C)
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T: Add U, W or R to your mana pool. Use this mana only to cast noncreature spells.
Mardu Monument 2
Artifact (C)
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Raid — If a creature attacked this turn, CARDNAME gains :
T: Add R, B or W to your mana pool.
Abzhan Monument 2
Artifact (C)
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
If you control a creature with one or more +1/+1 counters on it, CARDNAME gains :
T: Add W, B or G to your mana pool.
I know that they're probably too strong and their power level isn't the same, but I felt the idea is still interesting enough to be submitted. I'd be gratefull if you could help me improve them.
I think it is problematic that these only fix your mana if you're already doing well. I would like it if they always fixed your mana but gave some other benefit once you hit the clan-matching trigger condition.
DeleteUnfortunately, I think there is about a 0% chance a design that did that could fit in common.
This could solve this problem :
DeleteTemur Monument 2
Artifact (C)
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
1, T: Add G, U or R to your mana pool.
Ferocious — If you control a creature with power 4 or greater, CARDNAME gains :
T: Add G, U or R to your mana pool.
Maybe too complex for common...
There's nothing wrong with setting out to design a common and designing an uncommon instead!
DeleteI don't know the exact implications of this regarding LSP and power level, but this is the idea that's twisting in my mind:
ReplyDeleteMardu Monument 2
Artifact
Mardu Monument enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add R, W, or B to your mana pool. This mana can’t be used to cast blue or green spell, or to pay for abilities of a blue or green source.
I don't know if it's better than Rampant Growth (I don't want it to be) and probably it is too complicated for a common. Also, the templating is mine, and was this way to forbidding from paying for off-color activated abilities, triggered abilities, and morph.
Mardu Totem 2
ReplyDeleteArtifact
Common
R, T: add WB
W, T: add BR
B, T: add RW
I'm wondering if the specific color activations would discourage off color wedges from picking these.
DeletePossibly this doesn't need three activated abilities at common. Not sure how that would go
These signet-y mana math artifacts aren't particularly new player friendly. I still hate trying to figure out what mana I can produce with a signet.
DeleteTrying to clean it up slightly, you could make the ability:
2, T: Add RWB to your mana pool.
Unfortunately I feel both that (and your earlier proposal) are a bit too strong at 2 and too weak at 3.
This is a tough challenge!
ReplyDeleteJeskai Storehouse 4
Artifact (C)
If you have no land cards in hand, you may reveal your hand rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
Tap: add U, W, or R to your mana pool.
Intent is to help new players who may not have put enough land in their decks -- though maybe making it easy on them means they won't learn their lesson, and this ultimately does them a disservice?
This will probably provide ramp on turn 4 or 5 reasonably often by coming down for free. Is that too powerful?
So, in standard, I run no lands and 20 of these, and all my mana sources are Moxes?
DeleteFascinating, but not common, and possibly broken for the reason that Tommy gives.But now I want to make this design work... maybe "Reveal your hand: if there are no land cards in your hand, you may play CARDNAME as a land without paying its mana cost." Yikes, that's a thorny templating and rules issue.
DeleteEven then, this is just another cycle of artifact lands, except they're better. Affinity would have a field day.
DeleteAh, you're right, I wasn't thinking about constructed, and this is a bit complex for common. I don't see how to salvage this design without making it more complex. Maybe a cycle of sorceries, like wedge-colored Land Grants.
DeleteTemur Outpost 2
ReplyDeleteArtifact - (c)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may pay 1. If you do, put a territory counter on CARDNAME.
2, Remove a territory counter from CARDNAME: Add URG to your mana pool.
There is a certain mathematical elegance to this design, carefully dancing between the 2 and 3 mana line we've been discussing.
DeleteUnfortunately, I think this is not a good card for new players, because it has a super easy to miss trigger. When a new player excitedly draws their card before doing the trigger and is informed that means they've missed it, they won't be happy. More to the point, I'm not sure most new players will be able to understand this card, so they won't put it in their deck.
In general, I'm not a fan of making people decide before drawing a card whether or not to commit mana to something. This is also fiddly because it involves tracking another marker.
I do wish Magic's upkeep step occurred after the draw; "the beginning of your precombat main phase" feels very tl;dr to me. One nice thing is that if you draw and realize you do need the mana, you can just cash in the counter immediately in most circumstances.
DeleteI might contend that the fiddliness of tracking a counter is balanced out by the flavor.
I'm dense, I don't understand the flavor.
DeleteAlso, imagine if you had 3 of these in play (as you very often do with tap lands), do you think that would be manageable, fiddliness wise?
The cards I would have liked to seen replaced are actually the ally color dual lands. Messaging is really important, and telling people "play enemy colors!" might be more important than letting them get better fixing.
ReplyDeleteBut for the challenge:
Jeskai Manalith
CARDNAME enters the battlefield tapped.
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, you may play a card with morph face down.
T: Add U, R, or W to your mana pool.
I think LSPs undervalued morphs (the other way this set fixes your mana), so telling them to play morphs is one way of helping them make more mana stable decks.
Mana cost should be 3. No idea if it's too strong; it probably also unfairly bolsters Green/Blue (the colors without a lot of morpths). An alternate version that's cleverer (probably worse for low skill) is 4 mana, add URW when ETB.
DeleteYOu could say that when it ETBs add 3 to your mana pool to leave a little more option.
DeleteI'm worried that card would be too good in combo artifact decks (Cloudstone Curio?). Possibly "add 3 to your mana pool. Use this mana only to cast creature spells" but I'm not how obvious I need to be.
DeleteI don't like the prism designs submitted because they slot right into 4 and 5 color decks splashing cards which means they don't get around to new players (Prophetic Prism was an auto-include in both limited formats it's been legal in, and Gatecrash was much more tempo-oriented and less color intensive than Khans). They should be weaker so they go later and worse when you're not in the clan so they make their way around to players who need them. Wizards got this right with the Banners, they need to be terrible unless you're likely to get the clan's mana later on.
ReplyDeleteTemur Clanstone 2
Artifact
1, T: Add G, U, or R to your mana pool.
GUR, T, Sacrifice CARDNAME: Draw a card.
I definitely understand what you're trying to do, and I agree the 3 mana cost on banners is a very clever part of their design, that really forces them to go where they're supposed to.
DeleteProphetic Prism is an amazing card, and yes, I always played them in GTC (one of my favorite formats) and it is probably my most drafted card in any format ever. There is a lot of room for bad Prophetic Prisms to still be good, and I agree that my design (and especially Cyzinsky's) might go a bit too well into a 5 color deck (though up front I said I thought Banners did exactly what they were supposed to, so I just designed a mana rock that was better than the banners).
Unfortunately, I think your design is a bad Mana Cylix, and Mana Cylix is probably irreparably bad. I think if Temur Clanstone cost 0, it would still be wrong to play it most of the time, so indeed, I think newer players would likely get more of these, but I fear (in this case) that might be bad thing, as I think newer players don't distinguish well between filtering and ramping.
Your design made me think more about the problem with the Banners, and I think a big part of the issue is that they're such huge tempo sucks on both sides. I tried a bunch of variations of Banners that refund your mana, like ETB add GUR to your mana pool or something, but none quite hit the right space.
I do think one good way to get the banners to two mana is to divorce them from ramp, and just make it fixing, but it is hard to do that in a way that strongly encourages 3 color decks.
A couple of ideas here...
ReplyDeleteAbzan Guidepost 4
Artifact (Common)
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, draw a card.
T: Add W, B, or G to your mana pool.
4 mana might be a bit much for mana fixing, but KTK is a pretty slow format anyway. Alternatively, another twist on the Prophetic Prism idea with a bit more potential oomph:
Abzan Guidepost 2
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, draw a card.
W: Add B or G to your mana pool.
Any feedback / preferences regarding these two?
I prefer the first one, as the second only really works if one of your base colors is white and you're Abzan or Mardu. You could be in those clans but be primarily BG or WR and this will not help you at all. Additionally, I think to have five of these running around that all cantrip at 2 mana is going to have players taking them super high.
DeleteOK, the first one it is. Thanks!
DeleteI'm happy to do the renders for this challenge.
ReplyDeleteHow long should I wait for people to finalize their designs and what format is best for you?
Thanks, Reuben. Any time today is valid. Earlier makes it more likely I'll get the review out today.
DeleteIf it's possible to put the images in ZIP or somewhere I can batch download them, that's ideal.
Sorry I saw Pasteur volunteered before me. I'll get the renders to you today though.
DeleteSomething relevant to the challenge is that WOTC actually hasn't even printed Rampant Growth or Farseek since M13 (more than two years ago), so WOTC might believe that even in Green, two mana ramp spells are a bit too far, though I don't think I've seen this discussed. If anyone has a reference of someone from WOTC talking about it, I'd love to see it.
ReplyDeleteAfter further reflection, I think what is really going on is that Rampant Growth is getting replaced by the likes of Voyaging Satyr and Sylvan Caryatid that perform basically the same role, but without shuffling.
DeleteTrue, this is the year of Sylvan Caryatid. It and Courser have given way to a lot of green midrange/control decks that don't want to see Wraths. I think Sylvan Caryatid is just as strong as Rampant Growth, but more interactive and expensive.
DeleteNice reply time! No shuffling is a very good reason as well. I expect Sylvan Caryatid to see some reprints
Delete"Put a basic land token of your choice onto the battlefield"
DeleteFor the record, I'm not a fan of Caryatid. It slams one of the axises an aggro deck can usually attack a ramp deck shut with it's largeish toughness and hexproof just by being in teh deck, with no work from the ramp player to fix the matchup. I appreciate the thought about shuffling, but give us more Rattleclaw Mystics/Voyaging Satyrs and less Caraytids please.
Abzan Stele (2)
ReplyDeleteAbzan Stele enters the battlefield tapped
When Abzan Stele enters the battlefield add B, G, or W to your mana pool
T: add (1) to your mana pool.