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.
The Eldrazi annihilate Zendikar. Having failed to save the plane, several planeswalkers regroup on Alara, and the Eldrazi follow their trail, ready to claim their next planar victim. There's a plan to catch the Eldrazi in the maelstrom, or to re-fracture the plane in an attempt to trap or fracture this menace to the multiverse.
Design a card with this art for this theoretical set that demonstrates something unique to the set or to the plane. Bonus points for lower rarity.
Ok, this is probably a massive no-no, but it's legitimately the first thought that crossed my mind when I heard "Alara" and "Eldrazi" in the same sentence.
ReplyDeleteUpturned Ziggurat
Land (u / r dependent on needs of development with regard to acceleration)
Upturned Ziggurat enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
3, T: Add 1 to your mana pool for each other nonbasic colorless permanent you control. (Lands are colorless.)
Alara + Eldrazi means a balance between accelerating into big colorless threats and the ramp into Domain or three coloured decks. While Domain likely doesn't interact with Ziggurat, based on KTK/FRF there will likely be a concerted effort to provide enough fixing to make a card such as this pretty good when you consider things such as Obelisks. The problem is whether it is too much for other formats to handle.
Big mana! Probably rare? I do like this with spawn :)
DeleteTajuran Sanctuary
ReplyDelete3G
Enchantment (U)
Whenever CARDNAME or a Forest enters the battlefield under your control, you may have target creature get +1/+1 until end of turn for each Forest you control.
This doesn't really do a great job of conveying something spectacular in line with the provided flavor, but I guess the basic idea would be that the coalition of friendly planeswalkers was able to transport fragments of Zendikar and physically/magically tether them to Alara at appropriately aligned locations. So here you have some chunk of Tajuru floating above the jungles of Jund, transmitting the power of its native wilderness down via vines once of Vastwood.
Nayan Pride
ReplyDelete3G
Sorcery - Common
Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.
If you spent R and W to cast Nayan Pride, creatures you control get +1/+0 and gain trample until end of turn.
A simple change from one color to two colors in the Patagia Viper/Frostburn Weird/Seed Spark-esque space played around with in original Ravnica.
I changed my original idea so much I totally forgot about the art.
DeleteWhoops.
Jund Cleaving
3G
Sorcery - Common
Search your library for a Forest, a Mountain, and a Swamp card and reveal them. If you spent R and B to cast CARDNAME, put them onto the battlefield tapped. Otherwise, put them into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
Curious that the main color isn't at the center of the wedge. Would you consider this offset a theme of the theoretical set?
DeleteMaybe each shard would have a vertical cycle with each combination, with the splashy, pushed-for-constructed rare being the one in the center of the shard.
DeleteI was not thinking of changing the center color of the shards as a theme, but that could definitely be a neat thing to do.
@genesis: see noble hierarch
Delete@Mike George Noble Hierarch wasn't part of a cycle, which appears to be what R Stetch was alluding to with the mentions of Ravnica cards.
DeleteDrifting Forest
ReplyDeleteLand - Forest (U)
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
Landfall -- Whenever ~ or another land enters the battlefield under your control, you may pay {1}. If you do, untap target land you control.
--
The original Zendikar had a strong mono colored theme, which can be tough on limited mana bases (since drafting mono colored decks is usually but the dream of a fevered madman). This land (which I imagine is part of a cycle) lets you cast your double and triple colored spells much more easily, as long as you have the patience for it.
My goal here is to let you play some of the mono color cards in two color draft decks without really enabling crazy 3+ color decks and without it showing up in constructed.
Seems novel and reasonable, even alongside something like bouncelands. Potentially taxing to play with on MODO, but no more so than various Arbor Elves. I think the trick would be seeing if newer players see the forest (fixing) for the trees (etbt).
DeleteI have visions of playing this alongside Gaea's Cradle in EDH.
DeleteLess landfall/Zendikar-y and a little different, but much cleaner:
DeleteDrifting Forest
Land - U
Drifting Forest enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add G to your mana pool
1, T: Add GG to your mana pool.
To be clear that's just a riff - I think the original is really cool too!
DeleteYeah, I spent a lot of time iterating to clean mine up but still wasn't super happy with where it ended up, so I agree there is room to iterate more!
DeleteI would change it to 1, TAP: Untap target land. I like that it is versetile enough to help you pay for dense costs, like CCC but it also helps you pay for multicolor cards, a la the original Alara. It also works well with lands that have tap abilities. Having something like this at c/u would really let the set breath with whichever direction they decided to go.
Deletekudos.
The 1, Tap template, which I like quite a bit, is much much weaker, making this more like a Shimmering Grotto, since it puts you down a mana to fix, making it much, much worse.
DeleteThe way I've phrased it now, it can provide Green mana the turn you play it, which is, I think, an interesting twist on the ETBT lands. I wish it was more elegant, but I think I'm going to leave it as submitted for now, and hope someone in development thinks of a nicer way to write it.
How about "landfall- untap CARDNAME"?
DeleteMike: That's way too powerful, it makes 2 mana almost every turn.
DeleteThat's why I explicitly spelled out 1, T: GG for my riff - it doesn't leave you down mana like Shimmering Grotto, and it spells out for LSPs why you would want to use it - for cards that have GG or more in their cost.
DeleteYeah R, your design was great!
DeleteI love this challenge, nice work!
ReplyDeleteUnmoor Terrain - 1G
Sorcery (U)
Sacrifice any number of Forests, then search your library for that many basic lands and put them onto the battlefield tapped.
Intentional that this is gross card disadvantage?
DeleteHow so? It's just a Scapeshift-a-like that doesn't play nearly as well in Constructed.
DeleteScapeshift is also card disadvantage, and only sees play because it is part of a combo. No matter how many lands you sac, this puts you down one card. With no outlets for exploitation, baseline is totally unplayble in limited.
DeleteI can imagine, though, that the goal is to give your Windrider Eels +10/+10 and swing for the win out of nowhere, in which case the card disadvantage might well be intentional, to make sure the card floats to the player drafting the weird combo deck.
Parodoxically, often in draft, heavily nerfing a card that is central to an archetype can make that archetype much stronger. I just wanted to know if it was intentional.
Yeah, I guess this is just scapeshift. Not so original!
DeleteI like this just fine. Limited color fixer with super johnny build around me potential with Landfall. Harrow was a huge build around me, and with a few landfall guys this becomes a super-Overrun
DeleteMy original slight concern was that this is unplayable as a limited mana fixer and would need significant juice to get there.
DeleteIt does have neat overrun potential, but I think if that happens to someone more than once, they might never play the format again.
I also generally don't like cards that don't do what they look like they do. This looks like it is a mana fixer, but it doesn't really do that, because if you play the card for that, you are wrong.
It does something else, and that something else is awesome (power level issues aside), but I don't like it when the only functionality of a card is disguised behind something else. [That is my aesthetic preference, though, and I don't think it is necessarily an absolute.]
@Wobbles You mention Harrow, which is closer to my ideal here. It does what it advertises very competently, it is a weird Rampant Growth, but at least it is a two for two. It also has the beautiful secret application, but at least the damage is bounded.
Summary: For me, this is a hair away from an excellent design, but is definitely in a cool space.
RE: Rules Templating — Anyone know why Harrow and Crop Rotation (perhaps others as well) had you sacrifice the lands as an additional cost? Also, you do presumably need to shuffle after searching.
DeleteRE: Tommy's Concerns — This might sound funny, but what if it had Basic Landcycling?
Unmoor Terrain
1G
Sorcery (C)
Sacrifice any number of Forests. Search your library for up to that many basic lands, put them onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
Basic Landcycling 2
I think it is too unaesthetic to put landcycling on a card that costs 2 and fixes mana.
DeleteI think perhaps the line of text it currently has followed by a Domain effect. Here's a riff:
Might of Zendikar 1G
Instant
You may sacrifice a forest. If you do, search your library for a basic land and put it onto the battlefield tapped.
Domain -- Target creature bets +X/+X until end of turn where X is the number of basic land types among lands you control.
----
Assuming the set already has cycling and its variants locked in (as Alara did), is it more or less aesthetic to present a modal spell like:
DeleteTerrain Unmoored or More Terrain
1G
Sorcery (C)
Choose one:
— Sacrifice any number of Forests. Search your library for up to that many basic lands, put them onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
— Search your library for a basic land card, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Wow, lots of comments-- thanks!
DeleteTommy: the card disadvantage wasn't intentional (I intended this mostly to be a color-fixer), but you're right that it does make it kinda bad in limited. Interesting point about interaction with archetypes, I'd be happy if that turned out to be true in this case. I think I'll make it really cheap since you are paying a card.
metaghost: you're right, it does need a shuffle. Sacrificing as a cost could make it really painful if this is countered.
Cool ideas with landcycling and domain, I think either could be good in the right set.
Unmoor Terrain - G
Sorcery (U)
Sacrifice any number of Forests, search your library for that many basic lands and put them onto the battlefield tapped, the shuffle your library.
DeleteWhoops, typo.
Unmoor Terrain - G
Sorcery (U)
Sacrifice any number of Forests, search your library for that many basic lands and put them onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
To answer the crop rotation question: consider when you want the sacrifice to be made with regard to a counterspell. With a large dump, like this card, I'd strongly push to keep it how it's written. Pesky blue mages don't need another incentive to be dastardly. "Um, I pay UU and...oops, one sided Armageddon..."
DeleteTerralift 2G
ReplyDeleteSorcery (C)
You may return a Forest card you control to its owner’s hand rather than pay Terralift’s mana cost.
Search your library for a basic land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped.
Daze is a powerhouse in Legacy, Gush banned, but...none of the other Masques cards with this mechanic ever had much of an impact. Why not let the other colors in on the fun and power up landfall at the same time? Note that this is a ramp spell with a non-ramp fixing mode (support for 4-5 color decks in Resistance of Alara)?
Seems like it could be interesting as an enabler both for landfall-type decks and kiln-fiend type decks. Were you thinking a horizontal or vertical cycle? (or neither?)
DeleteI'm thinking at least one horizontal cycle at each of common and uncommon, with additional cards as determined by the mechanical needs of each color in the set.
DeleteI like it. What do you see as the other members of the common cycle?
DeleteWhite-Tap a dude. Maybe even tap two dudes as sorcery.
DeleteBlue-Hard one since so many have been done already. Sifting spell? Spreading Seas UEOT?
Black-Drain some life.
Red-Target thing gains haste UEOT. Rummage would be pretty neat, getting to discard the land you bounced, but might be too good.
I would definitely steer away from effects that can muck up combat (and instant speed in general) due to the feel-bads of having to play around tapped out opponents. Legacy can handle that, Standard/LSP experience probably not.
This seemed so obvious as soon as I read it. It helps fix your mana while also enabling Landfall. A common cycle of this mechanic would encourage more landfall and, a la Gush, work to extend mana and help to fix your colors. Assuming Landfall and multicolor are both themes. This also echos the Traps from Zendikar, being a conditionally free spell. Free spells are neat when not overdone, but we haven't had any for a while. Also, if flavored to be on the Resistance side of the conflict, it would feel like the plane is helpping fight back against the invaders. Well done.
DeleteThis card is a homerun for the art.
DeleteThis would be my flavor interpretation of the mechanic:
DeleteThe planeswalkers believe that the swirling, chaotic energies of the Maelstrom will be strong enough to trap the Eldrazi. However, with the plane whole, the Maelstrom is barely detectable on the surface, even by magical means. Thus the plane must be fractured. The planeswalkers' efforts in determining which areas can be deliberately weakened to allow the Maelstrom to spill forth result in a lot of seismic shifts over the plane, represented in-game by lands being played, disappearing, reappearing at different times, or being replaced by lands of different colors.
This causes strife among the people of Alara, who increasingly segregate into like-minded tribes. The second set takes place during the aftermath of the fracturing, where the tribes are now cohesive and distinct entities based around a shard (or wedge! no one said the plane had to re-cleave along the same lines as the inhabitants are used to!) A significant increase in the number of Eldrazi cards will be present as the battle over the fate of Alara begins in earnest.
A bit about the draft format: The first draft format will be Ravnica-esque, with four-color decks being common and five-color possible. The manafixing in the first set will generally involve searching for basic lands, representing a united Alara with access to every color of magic. The second draft format will strongly emphasize picking and sticking to a shard/wedge, possibly reinforced in the first set by the presence of powerful three-color uncommons (which most any deck could play at first, but now only those specific shard/wedge decks want). Manafixing effects are exclusively lands or mana rocks that produce their associated shard/wedge's colors. There might also be an Eldrazi ramp deck that eschews all multicolor cards; if so, it will be two-color, with one of those colors being green. Otherwise individual Eldrazi cards might be picked up by players in one of the more controlling shards/wedges but will not form the backbone of any deck theme.
I blame Ben Nassau for making me think way too much about this.
ReplyDeleteTerrain Adjustment
Sorcery, 3G, common
Fracture target land. (The next time that land becomes tapped, destroy it.)
Search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.
This specific card is a variation on Frenzied Tilling, but I imagine fracture would appear mostly targeting creatures. There might be some ways to regenerate arbitrary permanents to counteract this, too.
Could use a counter to track fracturing. Probably should do?
I worry about this discouraging attacking too much if done too much on creatures, and leading to/exacerbating mana screw if done too much on lands.
DeleteMaybe a blight counter? But maybe not – the flavor of "fracture" is pretty interesting. Which colors do you think should get to fracture which types of permanents?
DeleteI was thinking it'd follow what they can destroy: white hits artifacts and combatants, black creatures and lands, red artifacts and lands, green the same plus flyers. (Being unable to apply to enchantments is a significant drawback of fracture, I'll grant you that.) Blue probably doesn't fracture anything but gets a bunch of ways to interact with it: different kinds of Twiddle effects, perhaps a "pre-emptive untap" something like "the next time target permanent would become tapped, it doesn't"?
DeletePasteur is right, this is fairly similar to blight from GDS2. This has the advantage of doing something the first time it happens, but the disadvantage of not working on things that don't tap like Equipment or enchantments.
Do you think it can apply in extra colours beyond that?
Mayael's Area
ReplyDeleteLand. (R)
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
2WGR, T: Creatures with power 5 or greater you control gain indestructible and can't be exiled or sacrificed until end of turn.
"After Progenitus, Naya relinquishes nothing to the Usurpers." -Mayael, The Anima
Props to the "Wolf Run" land cycle from Innistrad. It's a good template that a shard set could make use of. Producing colorless is a HUGE risk in Alara and that was intended.
I choose to revisit the "+5 power" theme and pay it off in a splashy anti-annihilator way to shine a spotlight on "Shard vs Eldrazi".
Flavor-wise: The name is tongue-in-cheek, but the illustration seems to show the full might of Naya refusing to let go in the face of an inexorable force. I felt flavor text was important to hammer home the feeling of determination in the face of terrible loss.
I was shooting for uncommon, but this ended up being rare. I'm not sure common or uncommon is the right place to put an Eldrazi-hoser anyways.
I think this template is too strong, and in the case of "can't be sacrificed" has very weird rules implications that aren't all upside. I think it is way more than enough to say "Hexproof and indestructible."
DeleteThe biggest downside is that anyway you slice it these are all Green abilities. Anyway this could be more Naya?
Love the name
DeleteI like the idea of making some of your permanents sacrifice-proof, but have no idea how to template it. "Effects can't force you to sacrifice...", maybe?
DeleteTajuru Preserver and Sigarda have the templating solution.
DeleteI don't think Sigarda helps here, because it wants to only prevent sacrificing creatures with power 5 or greater.
Delete"Spells and abilities your opponents control can't cause you to sacrifice creatures with power 5 or greater."
DeleteThis feels like it would be better as an always-on card with a mana cost, rather than a land that has a clunky and expensive activated ability.
I don't think that template works Jenesis. What if I have a 2 toughness creature and a 5 toughness creature? I don't think that template makes unambiguous that I still have to sacrifice the 2 toughness one.
DeleteThe reason is that two things are going on here. One is a depowering of your opponent's spells, but the other is a forcing of you when making choices about what to sacrifice. I think this just isn't a rabbithole worth chasing.
I think "permanent x can't be sacrificed" is pretty succinct. There really isn't a lot of wiggle room there.
DeleteAs far as the abilities only being green: alara didn't work the way you expect it to. Many of the tri-color cards represented the shard, not their constituent colors.
This type of effect would be miserable if it was a continuous effect. Making it a resource exhausting "shields down" style effect allows it to do something flashy without warping the entire game.
DeleteUp for Grabs {2/B}{2/R}
ReplyDeleteSorcery (C)
Domineer target land. ~ deals 1 damage to its controller. (Gain control of target land until end of turn. Untap it and it gains haste until end of turn.)
Alara Reborn experimented with mixing hybrid and mono color. When it clashes with Eldrazi, some colorless element melds into the Alaran mana. Creating this multicolor colorless hybrid.
Domineer is the Grixis mechanic. Temporary steal a permanent. Art shows a chunk of land lifting into the air. When it drops back down, it causes the earth to tremble.
Reverse order of effects.
DeleteUp for Grabs {2/B}{2/R}
Sorcery (C)
~ deals 1 damage to target land's owner. Domineer that land. (Gain control of target land until end of turn. Untap it and it gains haste until end of turn.)
I like the mechanic and the reasoning for adding monocolour hybrid - or rather multicolour colourless hybrid. The particular card really bad though. Unless there are lots of lands at low rarities that have useful abilities that aren't restricted to when they enter the battlefield? Which sounds dubious from a NWO board-complexity standpoint.
DeleteNaya Panorama
ReplyDeleteLand (c)
{T}: Add {1} to your mana pool.
{1}, {T}, Sacrifice Naya Panorama: Search your library for a basic Mountain, Forest, or Plains card and put it onto the battlefield tapped. Then shuffle your library.
Excellent choice!
Delete"something unique to the set or to the plane"..
Deleteheh, fair enough.
@AlexC: Not sure if you got it, but this double triggers landfall on top of directly referencing Alara, so it is the perfect reprint that means something different.
Delete@Tommy: Why is the onus on Alex to make a connection to a mechanic that's not a given for the set?
Delete"Here's this really cool plot involving Eldrazi and planeswalkers and multiple planes! Design a card for this land art, preferably at common."
ReplyDeleteTrying to figure out which part of this challenge is best to ignore.
Kitesail Excursion
ReplyDelete1W
Sorcery
Until your next turn, whenever a land enters the battlefield, you may draw a card.
To boldly go where no Kor has gone before.
Render: http://i.imgur.com/O3rQnha.jpg
Is this white?
DeleteI suppose in a way its of a lineage with Land Tax and Tithe, but it does look curious in white. Still, I can picture the Kor being conceptually integrated with Naya and having effects like this.
DeleteIt feels definitely green to me.
DeleteNon-destructive shenanigans with lands and generating advantage through lands is clearly secondarily white. So, yes, this is white.
DeleteCould the card (with a different flavor) be green? Obviously. Is the effect in a vacuum even primarily green? Most likely! But the Kor are a race of white nomads from Zendikar known for their kitesails and wayfaring. Moreover, limiting opponent behavior is white.
There isn't actually a lot of precedent for the exact effect in any color. Seer's Sundial is the closest thing, and it's an artifact. Kor Cartographer, however, is one of many in a long line of cards establishing "being constructive with lands" firmly in white's wheelhouse. Additionally, as a common, it offers real guidance as to which less-worn portions of white's color pie Zendi/Kor flavor highlights.
Also note how those two most closely related cards are from Zendikar block, how the effect is a natural call-out to landfall, etc. A fair amount of consideration went into making Kitesail Excursion precisely fit the given flavor profile. (Assuming a small band of Kor refugees made it to Alara.)
This is not even slightly white. If any nongreen color would do this, it would be black, which is tertiary in land shenanigans; white isn't even that. And white is not supposed to get repeatable card draw, except rarely in extremely flavorful circumstances that help it aggressively, and preferably not even then. Which, again, this isn't, not even slightly.
DeleteThis is unequivocally a green card.
Oof. I didn't even realize it counted your opponent's lands. And scaled upward ridiculously in multiplayer. Color issues or no, 2 mana for either a draw 2 or a pseudo-LD spell is too much.
DeleteCzynski -- You're just wrong. White is unequivocally secondary in non-destructive green-style land manipulation, search, and ramp. This has been a consistent piece of white's color pie throughout all eras of Magic's history:
DeleteKor Cartographer, Endless Horizons, Knight of the White Orchid, Knight of the Reliquary, Flagstones of Trokair, Path to Exile, Oath of Lieges, Land Tax, Weathered Wayfarer, Gift of Estates, Tithe
White also clearly has access to multi/repeatable card draw that hinges on performing a particular action, or playing along with a particular mechanic or archetype:
Kor Spiritdancer, Mentor of the Meek, Mesa Enchantress, Puresteel Paladin, Sage's Reverie, Spiritual Focus
Additionally, one of the major themes of Zendikar in general is a stronger than usual bit of green's care for lands leaking into all the colors (but especially white), as in Ruin Ghost (oh my god, filtering in white!) and the aforementioned Kor Cartographer. Examples of this in other colors include Grim Discovery and Goblin Guide.
In my opinion it's also pretty dishonest to call Kitesail Excursion "repeatable card draw" in the first place. A lot of the time it's going to be no better than "1W, Draw a card", and even in the early game, getting more than one card depends on your opponent(s) choosing to allow you to do so. Obviously Kitesail Excursion plays well with fetchlands, but hey, Zendikar. Who knows if there would even be fetchlands in "the last remnants of Zendikar seek refuge in Alara, chased by the Eldrazi" block, but either way the interaction with fetchlands is a cunning and appropriate callback to the original Zendikar block.
Jenesis -- Your power-level concerns I am willing to entertain, though I actually just disagree with them. Multiplayer notwithstanding, Kitesail Excursion isn't all that strong. Punisher mechanics are always weaker than you think they are, and this is one that rapidly dwindles in power the longer the game drags on. (On, say, turn 8, most opponent(s) can just not play a land and not even care.)
DeleteI hesitate to call this pseudo-LD, though I certainly see where you're coming from. Consider that Kitesail Excursion doesn't deny access to colors, and doesn't actually reduce the total number of lands your opponent(s) will ultimately have access to. It's more of a tax in that it just slows down the game a bit, assuming that's the choice your opponent(s) make.
All that being said, as this is primarily a design blog and a design exercise, I don't think your objections are entirely appropriate, given that the effect can clearly be balanced in principle with any number of minor tweaks. If you think the card is too strong, you can simply nerf the mana cost to 2W (or GW or 1GW to silence everyone with a poor grasp of the color pie), or take away the fetchland interaction by only triggering off played lands, or only triggering off basics, or non-basics, etc.
Thank you for your reply. However, I disagree with your assertion that my comments are inappropriate simply because this is a "design exercise." I'm not sure how often you've been participating in the WAC, but it's been going on for over a year, and pretty much every part of a card has been considered fair game for critique. In this thread, we have people discussing rarity, creature type/story elements, templating, and appropriateness of the art, all of which could and should be worked on by people other than the ones on the "design team." And WotC always has one or more development people on their design team these days. Yes, the development team could have changed it in any number of ways, but you had reasons for designing the card that you did, and that includes the mana cost and color. We're asking you about those reasons because we question whether they make the design contribute to a more fun gameplay experience.
DeleteThat said, upon further reflection, I think that in the right environment, this card wouldn't raise power-level concerns. A white deck designed to "tax" an opponent (and win through tempo advantage) would prefer not to spend mana playing an effect that doesn't affect the board, especially at the cost of creature development. A control deck doesn't want to be casting slightly better Divination on turn 3 vs an aggro deck (especially on the draw). Where this probably shines is on turns 4-7ish against other control decks, where (according to players much stronger at the control archetype than myself) card advantage and making land drops is paramount, and seeing an opponent miss land drops is a good sign that you can start fighting over the stack soon. The other home I could see for this card is in some kind of Summer Bloom-esque combo deck that chains extra land drops, which is the kind of deck that I thought this would find a home in before I even noticed that it affected your opponents (especially since it stacks in multiples), which I don't think is a power-level concern.
Regarding the color pie argument: I think what all those examples show is that white is good at drawing land cards (particularly when behind), but I don't see much support for using land cards to draw spells. Other than Seer's Sundial, the only card with this effect I can think of is Horn of Greed, which I associate more with Azusa EDH decks than anything else. Every color has gotten some sort of "positive interaction" with lands that doesn't involve landfall necessarily. Blue gets to bounce lands for value (Sea Drake, Trade Routes, all the Soratami cards), Black gets to search its deck for Swamps or make Swamps tap for extra mana, Red gets to sacrifice its own lands for a variety of effects, Green gets to ramp and animate lands. If we do look at landfall cards, green has the most, with white behind blue and black and only ahead of red. So I think there's a reasonable argument for green. (I also think there's a reasonable argument for white, seeing as white doesn't have much library manipulation as it is, but that reason is not "everyone who disagrees with my interpretation of the color pie is stupid.") Incidentally, this is MaRo's most recent word on the subject of repeatable card draw tied to an action or mechanic:
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/117358542113/you-mentioned-that-you-feel-like-mentor-of-the
"I do not feel repeatable draw cards should appear in White."
Jenesis -- Saying your power level concerns were "inappropriate" was just a polite way of saying that hand-wavy opinions about power level are pointlessly vapid, uninteresting, and a waste of everybody's time.
DeleteIf you see a completely broken combo that would crack a stable format wide open, speak up, but just declaring that something is "too much" is worse than saying nothing at all. The fact of the matter is that Kitesail Excursion is probably reasonable, but it has room to be tweaked if testing (which is never going to happen, mind you) shows it to be too strong.
That's really the only bar here that can be cleared with any certainty, and anything past that is just meaningless noise.
----
"I don't see much support [in white] for using land cards to draw spells. Other than Seer's Sundial, the only card with this effect I can think of is Horn of Greed."
There's no support in any color for using land drops to draw cards, so I don't really see the relevance of your observation. Kitesail Excursion utilizes an essentially unique mechanic whose closest existing analogs are colorless. (Or green and very old, if you're thinking of Burgeoning or Dirtcowl Wurm.)
I'm in complete agreement that the effect should be primarily green -- that is, in a vacuum, you'd expect such an effect to be found on a green card -- but that obviously doesn't mean it can't be found in other colors. And in my opinion the most reasonable secondary color is white, and it's not even close. White simply gets to do a lot of the same things green does when it comes to lands, and has consistently done so for 20 years.
----
"I do not feel repeatable draw cards should appear in White." -MaRo
Again, I think it's pretty dishonest to call Kitesail Excursion "repeatable draw" in the first place, but no matter. MaRo is not God, and stuff he disagrees with gets printed in every set. I disagree with him on that point, and clearly so do some of his colleagues, since multi/repeatable card draw keeps getting printed in white despite his objections.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see much support for the proposition that white gets to do much of anything with lands that doesn't involve 1) an opponent controlling more lands than the white player or 2) a land-focused mechanic or set theme.
DeleteThe polite way would be to say that my comment about the power level being "too much" was unconstructive, because it doesn't tell you what my objections are, or what development should tweak to make it better. (Which is odd, seeing as you were "willing to entertain" them at first.) But instead you chose to go the non-polite route. In any case, I'm done here.
This card is blue:
Deletehttp://magiccards.info/query?q=ior+ruin&v=card&s=cname
And a Kor-themed card in Zendikar-cum-Alara isn't plausible as a canvas for a "land-focused mechanic or set theme"?
DeletePlease forgive me if you found my speaking plainly (after initially beating around the bush) regarding your first comment's lack of substance. You didn't seem to have picked up on the innuendo the first time around, so I thought it best to simply continue with the unadorned truth.
If you prefer the descriptor "unconstructive" to "inappropriate" then I defer to your judgment. Arguing over how best to say "your statement has no actual substance" itself seems unconstructive in this context.
What I was willing to entertain was the idea that the power level was out of whack. I don't believe that it is, but I certainly haven't considered all situations, all formats, all decks, etc.
If you or anyone has an actual example where it's quite clear Kitesail Excursion does something too well, or is clearly stronger than existing analogs, etc., then by all means, let's hear it. Just opining that something is "too much", however, is unpersuasive and, as you say, unconstructive.
Wobbles -- Ior Ruin Expedition is an interesting thought, but if you look at the whole cycle, I believe it's clearly not an example of blue qua blue equating land drops and card draw.
DeleteThe pattern in Zendikar's Expedition cycle is that each color turns landfall -- the set mechanic -- into one of the usual things that color is well known for: white gains life, blue draws cards, black returns creatures from the graveyard, red makes a ball lightning, and green tutors lands.
In contrast, the Zendikar Quest cycle does depict color-appropriate triggers resulting in color-appropriate results:
White -- Play creatures → Tutor and equip an equipment
Blue -- Manipulate your library → Cheat krakens into play
Black -- Opponents discard → Opponents get drained
Red -- Play Goblins → Buff attack power
Green -- Creature combat → Make a fatty
Had the blue Quest turned landfall into card draw, that would definitely be the example you're looking for. The blue Expedition, however, is very clearly not the same thing.
After you contribute to this design community long enough, you realize that everyone has their preferences. For some, thinking outside the box (suggesting new keywords, stretching the color, designing one-off rares) is what interests them. For others, they prefer to color inside the lines, (iterating on common themes, staying in the center of the color pie, designing simple cards). There is no sense in trying to get designers to see your side of things, change their preference, or argue about who is right. The best debates are just about explaining your design point of view and accepting the point of view of others. The game changes too much too often to get caught up in secondary, or tertiary use of a mechanic.Citing examples that go back more than 5 years? What is the point of that? If you find other designers opinions invaluable or pointless you won't get much from this design blog. In fact, I have learned the most just by watching people's initial reactions to my designs. I would much rather have their gut reaction because we all have good design instincts, and I trust they are near the mark. Now, if I think they've missed something, I'll bring it up, but I never expect to change minds or prove I'm right. No one's right. Even Maro is just a designer with opinions. Instead, I will defend my choices, explain my design POV and move on. There's always another design challenge.
DeleteNich -- I don't believe it's productive to accept points of view that are founded on false premises and misapprehension. Furthermore, I do believe it's correct to simply label such opinions as wrong. I'd also like to think people want to know when their ideas are erroneous or mistaken.
DeleteSpeaking of which -- and I only mention this because I'd truly want to know in your position -- I don't think "invaluable" means what you think it means.
So there are too extremes, valuing the design comments above all else, and not valuing them at all. Both extremes won't do much to help you because it's impossible to design a card everyone likes (our different design values), and it's impossible to improve without taking the comments to heart.
DeleteJust trying to get everyone's praise isn't a way to learn design. A lot of good designs will only appeal to a few of us. Because you're hitting on the thing that draws those people to the game and tickles their fancy. Sometimes you have to pat yourself on the back for getting a few people to respond with "cool" and let go the others that say they don't like your design. The designs that are most likely to get most everyone's approval are often the most boring ones too, so there's that...
On the other extreme, putting up designs and fighting against every critique to the bitter end doesn't teach you anything either. Our POV's blind us to things and we need reminders from other designers that there's a wider audience to keep in mind. Even if you think they are 100% wrong, their perception is correct to a degree and should be acknowledged. Fight for your POV, but at a certain point, let it go and look forward to the next design.
Nich -- Your argument to moderation is simply fallacious. Generally speaking, trying to find a happy middle ground on some spectrum is pointless, if your goal truly is, as you seem to emphasize, to learn and improve.
DeleteOf course, I agree with you up to a point. Obviously, not everything has a right answer. For example, it's not "wrong" that MaRo doesn't like repeatable draw in white, and it's not "wrong" that I (and some of MaRo's colleagues) do (in moderation, and when it's thematically appropriate.)
It is wrong, in the sense that it's irrelevant, to, say, simply offer MaRo's point of view as a bald refutation of another's design. He's not any more right than someone that holds an opposing opinion (in this particular context), so why even bring it up? MaRo likes one thing. Other WotC designers quite evidently like other things. What does the quotation contribute to the discussion?
If Jenesis wanted to express an opinion, he should have expressed an opinion. Do you see the difference between "MaRo says repeatable card draw in white is wrong" and "Like MaRo, I personally don't like repeatable card draw in white"? One is an irrelevant-to-the-discussion factoid that can be refuted ("Yes, well, other designers do, look at all these cards"), the other is a point of view that can be accepted, even if one disagrees with it. (Of course, one can still question whether "repeatable card draw" is a sensible label, but you see what I'm getting at.)
And when Czynski and Wobbles make erroneous claims based on factually inaccurate premises, it's not doing them any favors to just ignore it. Czynski didn't do enough research. Wobbles didn't look at the rest of the Expedition cycle. It's not a problem, I was here to show them how to do it, what to look at, what to look for. What is a problem is when essentially factual corrections are violently rejected, or when people try to save incorrect arguments with pointless deflections or empty platitudes. Kumbaya is for the campfire.
Anyway, what makes you think I'm "trying to get everyone's praise"? I don't defend my positions out of vanity, I defend them because I believe they constitute a fundamentally good approach to design. I really and truly think I'm right, and that you'd all be better designers if you all thought more like me. I don't see that the community has made much progress from the one that prompted me to write this series of articles. I'd like it to.
"I really and truly think I'm right, and that you'd all be better designers if you all thought more like me."
DeleteYeah, we noticed. That aggressive, rude discussion style isn't going to make people inclined to listen attentively to your points, however good they are. There is benefit to taking care how you're coming across, because humans are social creatures, and we're not going to be inclined to discuss with someone who gets our hackles up.
There were interesting design points being discussed in this thread, but you've got so carried away with your arrogant self-important tone that almost nobody will be listening to them any more.
"I really and truly think I'm right, and that you'd all be better designers if you all thought more like me."
DeleteThis should be the new subtitle for our site. It is my favorite GA comment of all time.
This is in my blog moderator voice:
DeleteNickolas, this community is a not the right place for your brand of argumentation. We want all of our commenters to feel comfortable offering designs or feedback without having to worry about being insulted or belittled. The vast majority of visitors to this blog are able to express disagreement in a civil and respectful manner.
You've been asked repeatedly in the past to treat other commenters politely. The level of condescension in this thread shows that you still haven't learned that skill. Until you do, you are not welcome at Goblin Artisans. You are indefinitely banned from commenting.
So I wasn't gonna continue to engage, at least not after I figured out that Nickolas apparently fails to understand that "inappropriate" is a serious accusation in itself, and is not merely a "polite" substitute for "devoid of any intellectual value." In over two years of being a regular visitor to this site I've never encountered anyone else who felt the need to sully Jay's blog with this level of incivility. But I'll note there's a rather cute irony in being blatantly misgendered by someone acting like they can do no wrong.
DeleteI am disgusted that Nickolas received an indefinite ban for his comments in this thread. Did you seriously ban someone from participating in this community because they said other posters "made erroneous claims based on factually inaccurate premises?"
DeleteIf someone is insulted or belittled by "Here is why you are wrong: you misunderstand the Quests and Expeditions of Zendikar" then the onus is on them to learn how to separate criticism of their statements from criticism of their character.
Frankly, Havelock, I believe you are being dishonest. Nickolas has expressed his disagreement, in this thread at any rate, in a civil and respectful manner. He just hasn't been *nice*. But why should he be nice? He's gotten absolutely zero useful feedback. I count four posters who have said "This isn't white" for reasons that range from "Literally no explanation" to "An erroneous claim about whether black or white does more with lands." Jenesis tried, at least, but neither "This feels too powerful" nor "MaRo doesn't think white deserves card draw" are much better.
Jenesis, are you really telling me that when Nickolas wrote "I don't think your objections are entirely appropriate" you took it as a "serious accusation?"
For what it's worth, I'd prefer the card cost GW and be called something like Joint Expedition. But taxing your opponent if they play a land is PERFECTLY in theme for white. Sure, originally you just got 3 basics for it, but a straight up draw isn't that much of a reach.
DeleteMod voice:
DeleteNo, Alex. He called other commenters "dishonest" and referred to their feedback as "pointlessly vapid, uninteresting, and a waste of everybody's time". That is not remotely civil nor respectful.
Frankly, I'm unimpressed by the coincidence that that you always show up exactly when Nickolas gets in trouble. If you're not a sockpuppet, you're brigading. Cease commenting in this thread. This is your only warning.
"Jenesis, are you really telling me that when Nickolas wrote "I don't think your objections are entirely appropriate" you took it as a "serious accusation?""
DeleteIn short? Yes.
I am not a game designer by trade. I am a Spiky player who has largely transitioned into the role of judging. Nickolas did not give me any specifics about why they thought my post was inappropriate other than that it related to power level. In that regard I am forced to conclude, in the context of the rest of the paragraph, that any of my feedback regarding card power level is unwelcome on this blog. That is a serious accusation and one against which I am prepared to defend my side.
Finally, regarding the MaRo quote, since everyone seems to have missed the point of why I put it there in the first place: Nickolas claimed that people wanting the card to be white-green instead of monowhite had "a poor grasp of the color pie". I included the quote about monowhite card draw to show that, if anyone had a poor grasp of the color pie, it's probably not the guy actually in charge of Magic design.
Alex, I apologize that we suggested you might be a sockpuppet. Nickolas was disrespectful and your current support deepens the wound. Please do not continue in this vein.
DeleteSoil-Seal Dirge W
ReplyDeleteInstant (U)
As an additional cost to cast Soil-Seal Dirge, tap three untapped creatures you control.
Exile target creature.
---
Nahiri taught the basics of lithomancy to the inhabitants of Naya, determined not to let them suffer the kor's fate.
While this suggestion would make this much more complex, I do wonder if it might be more flavorful and useful as:
DeleteSoil-Seal Dirge
W
Instant (U)
As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, tap any number of untapped creatures.
Exile target creature with power less than the total power of creatures tapped this way.
Regardless, I do like the fundamental design.
Gaze of Justice, upgraded to instant in exchange for losing flashback. Fair enough. Which part is a theme of the set? Tapping creatures as an additional cost?
DeleteAh yeah, Gaze of Justice is a thing. We could make this a red card I suppose, to get more into a "new" space (lithomancy seems like a good red fit so the flavor still works, there's no reason Nahiri can't be Boros now):
DeleteEarth Rupture R
Instant (U)
As an additional cost to cast Earth Rupture, tap three untapped creatures you control.
Earth Rupture deals 4 damage to target creature or player.
---
Nahiri taught the basics of lithomancy to the inhabitants of Naya, determined not to let them suffer the kor's fate.
It's supporting the tokens theme that comes alongside Eldrazi spawn, but also the "united defenders" feel of the card ties well into people defending their home from the Eldrazi. Trying to capture part of the feel of Shared Discovery but in a more war-like manner.
I feel like blurring between geomancy (Koth/red/earth and lava) and lithomancy (Nahiri/white/stone and metal) is not something WotC wants to encourage.
DeleteWhat if it destroyed target attacker or blocker? It'd be better at killing Eldrazi.
If Eldrazi are presumed to still have Annihilate, I'm not sure a reactive removal spell is the right model.
DeleteOk, I think since the card still hits the notes I want in the original form despite the existence of Gaze of Justice, we'll just keep going with that one. It doesn't really loose out on any of that because something similar already exists in a different environment and flavor setting.
DeleteI imagine the plane of Alara reacting to the arrival of the Eldrazi in much the same way Zendikar reacted to their slumbering presence.
ReplyDeleteCanopy Skyruins (UNCOMMON)
Land
When Canopy Skyruins enters the battlefield, you lose 2 life.
T: Add G or W to your mana pool.
“I feel Progenitus recoil in the presence of these Eldrazi. We must prepare for war.”
—Mayael the Anima
At rare we get Shocklands which let you choose between Entering the battlefield tapped or taking 2 damage. And at lower rarities, we've had duals where you get no choice. They just ETB tapped. So this design i the other side of the coin, you get no choice. They just shock you. I imagine this set will be multicolor focused and need dual lands at lower rarities. And I think the mandatory life loss suggests the influence of the Eldrazi.
Totally sold, flavor and execution.
DeleteHow often will this card be better than its corresponding painland?
DeleteIn standard? I would imagine quite frequently, but there is the distinct possibility that this would be legal and the painland wouldn't be.
DeleteSpecifically, if the answer is "at least 51% of the time", I'm questioning whether this should be uncommon when the painlands are rare.
DeleteI think that the first painland ends up dealing more damage to you than the first of these "deadly" lands. But how often do the 2nd 3rd or 4th painland ever damage you? Unless they're all in your opening hand, by the time you draw them, you can get by with the painfree colorless mana option. Not so with these. No matter what each one is going to cost 2 life. I think these would be pretty awful rares.
DeleteSoaring Soil
ReplyDeleteLand - (c)
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add G or W to your mana pool.
Cycling 1G/W
Yep, very sensible. I've designed something similar in the past. We had a discussion over there about what the appropriate cycling cost was, GW or G/W; I see you split the difference :)
DeleteNot to totally rehash that discussion, but I think the cycling cost wants to be GW so that it goes to the right people in draft. I would totally play this as is in a Red/White deck.
DeleteAgreed with Tommy. If you're playing GW and only have access to one color at the time, you probably want to play the land for manafixing anyway.
DeleteIf this is a format in which Naya, GW, and RW are intended as viable archetypes then I would actually prefer the hybrid cost.
DeleteWhy do you want the RW player taking this from the player who can actually use it?
DeleteBecause sometimes you end up as RW and want to splash a green card and still being able to cycle it under other circumstances is valuable.
DeleteThat is certainly reasonable, and I understand the logic.
DeleteIn what is presumably a multicolor format, I highly prefer avoiding the circumstance where someone with no green cards drafts and a plays a GW dual. That hurts the table as a whole.
I really appreciate the feedback on this! It seems like this could be pushed by development either way, whether to encourage cycling and minor splashing, or make sure, as you say, that the lands get to those who will use them most effectively.
DeleteDoes GW vs. 1+hybrid change at all if these are if put at uncommon, or based on changes to the other/higher-rarity lands in the set? Or do these points more or less stand either way?
Canopy Drifter
ReplyDeleteLand - Forest Floatplane
(T: Add G or 2 to your mana pool.)
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
Floatplane is a new land type that produces 2.
That seems... strong. Stronger than we would normally print for the cost of ETBT. This has constructed implications across just about every format, which I wouldn't be comfortable with.
DeleteIs Floatplane a basic land type? I think I'm understanding right that the type itself is granting the ability?
Lands that tap for more than one mana have consistently led to very bad game play and Ancient Tomb is a multi-format all star.
DeleteEven if it didn't tap for Green, this would already be too powerful.
Lands that make 2 mana are indeed stupidly powerful and almost always underestimated.
DeleteDo note that this ETBs tapped, though. Which means the relevant comparison isn't Ancient Tomb but Peat Bog, Saprazzan Skerry and friends. But those also turned out to be more powerful than intended. So yes, this card is wayyy too good.
I'm leery of a deck that can play 8-12 fetchlands and 4-8 of these.
DeleteI'd rather Floatplane be just a regular land type (like Locus or Urza's) rather than a type with associated rules. (Is it a basic land type, e.g. if you have Prismatic Omen all your lands tap for 2? Why make something a basic land type without an associated basic land?) It already has ETBT written in its text box, so you're not losing any aesthetic elegance by adding the T: Add 2 mana ability.
Kor Asylum
ReplyDeleteLand (Uncommon)
Kor Asylum doesn't untap during its owner's untap step.
{T}: Add {W} or {G} to your mana pool.
Landfall -- Whenever another land enters the battlefield under your control, untap Kor Asylum.
This is pretty much exactly where I started for my design!
DeleteVery clever design. I wonder whether this would be playable in the Modern Amulet Bloom deck?
DeleteIt's probably clearer to say "during your untap step". Also, that way it doesn't turn into a Savannah when somebody casts Annex on it.
Correction... Savannah-plus-Lotus-Cobra. Yikes.
DeleteGood catch lpaulsen. I agree, that was a mistake on my part. And Tommy, I can't decide which I like better. I might have changed it in that direction, except that I really like the Kor, so I didn't. (I actually started this as a five-color land, but I liked it better as a two-color uncommon than a five-color rare.)
DeleteI don't see where all the Kor come from. There are no Kor on Alara.
ReplyDeleteDid you read what Jay wrote in his description of this week's challenge?
Delete"The Eldrazi annihilate Zendikar." So everybody is dead. including the Kor and Zendikar inhabitants.
DeleteOnly planeswalkers can planeswalk, and they don't know how to transport others across planes. Except very few instances, like Phyrexians and Weatherlight or planar overlay, etc.
DeleteWell... that's just like... your interpretation man.
DeleteEtherium-Ore Hulk 7W
ReplyDeleteArtifact Creature - Colossus (U)
Defender
3/17
---
"The titans cannot be beaten on the battlefield, but we can fight them to a standstill for as long as we can nonetheless." - Belator of Esper
With this art?
DeleteIt's a bit of a stretch, but if you imagine the big earth thing as an unrefined ore colossus that's been hastily assembled.
DeleteThe art clearly has a connection to land. The building looks like Jungle Shrine, thus the focus on Naya. It looks like the presence of the Eldrazi is causing massive upheaval in the area. So this is either a land or a spell connecting to land that's base green. My first thought was:
ReplyDeleteTerrainfirma - 4G
Sorcery
Put target land on top of its owner's library.
Draw a card.
The idea being that it can be an uproot that cantrips when pointed at the opponent. When pointed at yourself you can use it to reuse etb effects of lands without losing a draw step.
My second thought was to reprint Tranquil Thicket
Tranquil Thicket
Land
Tranquil Thicket enters the battlefield tapped.
TAP: Add G to your mana pool.
Cycling - G
This fits with the land matters ideals of the set, and has cycling which exists in Alara. Then I had a third idea:
Terrainfirma
Land
Terrainfirma enters the battlefield tapped.
2, sacrifice Terrainfirma: Draw a card.
Cycling from play helps get you more cards to smooth your draws. It still triggers landfall if that makes a comeback, but since it cycles from play you can still play it and have the option to cycle it. It has the flavor of the land coming apart in the presence of the Eldrazi. I'm not sure if I want the cycling to require a tap. I left it the way that cycling from play canonically has looked, but adding a tap and dropping the cycle cost to G would help make this feel different from previous incarnations.
That's supposed to have
DeleteTAP: Add G to you mana pool, though I do think it could be add 1 and be fine.
Naya Zendikon 1RGW
ReplyDeleteEnchantment- Aura (Uncommon)
Enchant land
Enchanted land is a 4/4 Elemental creature with vigilance, reach, and trample. It's still a land.
When enchanted land dies, return that card to its owner's hand.
Part of a cycle, obviously. If Ugin and company are going to use the plane of Alara to trap the Eldrazi, we can expect to see the same effects that we saw on Zendikar, right?
I kind of want to give this thing haste just to prevent the "oops, which land did I play this turn?" issues. Haste is also more obviously red than trample, if we're going for one keyword of each color (and is tertiary in green, if we're going for three green keywords, two of which overlap ally colors).
DeleteAdmittedly vigilance is a good way to bridge the mutually exclusive usefulness of reach and trample.
Good point. But this is meant as a cycle, so not all five designs can have haste, and players will hopefully get used to checking which land they played this turn . Also, the art feels more tramply than hasty to me.
DeletePlanar Trap 4RR
ReplyDeleteInstant - Trap (R)
If an opponent cast a spell with converted mana cost 7 or greater this turn, you may 2R rather than pay CARDNAME's mana cost.
Sacrifice any number of lands. For each land sacrificed this way, CARDNAME deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
"Throw all of Alara at them if you have to"
-Nissa, to Chandra
I'm interpreting the art as the land coming down rather than hovering or going up.
Nice interpretation of the art, different from what most of us are seeing here. Since this is a rare, I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to go even lower on the trap cost. Keeping up 2R is a pretty strong hindrance to deploying threats against the ramp deck, and if you're throwing 4 lands at an Eldrazi you incur massive card disadvantage anyway. On the flip side, if you have enough lands to finish off your opponent, it's likely you'll just be able to hardcast the spell.
DeleteDwarf the Past 2G
ReplyDeleteSorcery (C)
Return target creature card with the greatest power and target creature with the least power from your graveyard to your hand.
"Nayans worshipped the gargantuans of their world as gods...Until they found something bigger."
Flavorwise this is totally green. Mechanically its very black
DeleteI'm assuming I can cast this with only one creature in the yard, yes?
DeleteSo I had a couple of ideas:
ReplyDeleteZendikar Remnant
Land — Ruin
T: Add (1) to your mana pool.
T: Put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield tapped. Target opponent puts a 0/1 colorless Eldrazi Spawn creature token onto the battlefield. It has "Sacrifice this creature: Add (1) to your mana pool." (uncommon)
OR
T: Put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield tapped. Activate this ability only if you control two or more Ruins. (common)
Planar Convergence
Land (common)
T: Add (1) to your mana pool.
T, Sacrifice CARDNAME: Search your library for a colorless or multicolored card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
I like that this is an elegant mana-fixer that says, "Choose Eldrazi or Alara."
Nayan Roil
Land — Roil (common)
Roil lands you control have "T: Add G to your mana pool." (Including this.)
I enjoy the idea of Sliver lands.
Really liked the challenge of making a land that hints at the story.
I like Sliver lands too, but one on its own shouldn't outclass Forest, so I think they need to ETBT.
DeletePlanar Convergence is a nice take on Expedition Map, but it might be too good for being able to also search up almost all of the huge bomb creatures in the set.
Roil lands seem like an interesting space, but I agree that we probably need some sort of (slight) drawback. Maybe just a standard "When this enters the battlefield, pay 1 or lose 1 life"?
DeleteI like the idea of Roil lands, but because of the "no strictly better than a basic" rule, they will have to have some kind of a drawback. This makes the first one always worse than a basic in Limited, and the second one only better than a basic if it's a color you're playing, a different color from the first, and you have both in play at the same time. That's a pretty tall order even in a 40-card deck.
DeletePlanar Convergence is a free, uncounterable, colorless tutor for a wide class of cards. As-is I don't think it's printable at any rarity. Maybe if it cost 5,T to tutor or something (so less of a fixer, more of a utility card to find your finisher after your land base is established).
I don't like the parasitic Ruin mechanic since it feels too similar to RTR's Gates. The uncommon version could work, though it's more texty than I'd like (compared to Forbidden Orchard).
Didn't even occur to me that the Roil land was strictly better. Basic lands comparison wasn't even in my head. Of course you are all quite right, it does need a drawback. My suggestion would be "enters the battlefield tapped" and then you could have a rare Roil land that says, "Whenever a Roil land enters the battlefield tapped and under your control, untap it."
DeletePlanar Convergence's multicolored tutor, I will defer to you all, as being too powerful. I think it would be fine with a mana cost attached though. Perhaps "X, T: Search for a colorless or multicolored card with converted mana cost X." So it's a terramorphic expanse if you want it to be. But would not work at common anymore.
Bant Hedron 3
ReplyDeleteUncommon
Artifact - Hedron
{T}: Add {G}, {W}, or {U} to your mana pool.
{1}{W}{U}{B}: Tap target creature.
There's a lot that could be said about this plane. I tried to cram some of it into a card... I don't remember all the plot, but I think it was something like floating lands = hedrons and hedrons = mysterious things which had something to do with trapping the eldrazi.
So extrapolating wildly I decided Alara would have hedrons. They clearly have to have something to do with land, either being lands or enchanting lands or being mana rocks. And they should have a flavour of trapping eldrazi.
I debated something like tri-lands with "when you control 5, you get [big effect]" but it felt too much of a "gotcha" for the win to come out of lands, we had that problem in Zendikar. So I went for mana-rocks. I tried to model them after keyrunes or monuments: each having the corresponding mana ability, plus, for the same cost, a similar but slightly different ability. I hoped to be able to find 5 abilities which weren't too useful early on but helped a lot in the long game, and had a flavour of trapping powerful creatures.
That's already stretching the complexity to have a cycle with different effects, but I decided to give it a go.
I also had to accept that each effect would probably be mainly tied to the centre colour of the shard, I wasn't sure I could find a "bant-y" effect.
Make that:
DeleteBant Hedron 3
Uncommon
Artifact - Hedron
{T}: Add {G}, {W}, or {U} to your mana pool.
{1}{W}{U}{B}, {T}: Tap target creature.
The second ability should additionally cost {T}. Oops.
I considered having a more expensive ability that didn't but decided that was too much.
Even though the ability isn't that strong, having mana-rocks do multiple different things can be hard to balance: too good and everyone snaps them up if they need mana fixing or not; too bad and no-one wants to play them even if they need them.
Gonna assume the second ability costs green and not black?
DeleteDoes Hedron need to be a type? I feel name alone will be enough to create a connection within players' minds (e.g. Obelisks, Borderposts, Keyrunes, Cluestones, Banners...)
Even if fixing is generally rare in this set, I don't see an allied shard poaching these from Bant players just for two-color fixing (or splashing a 4th color), so the triple colored cost on the second ability should keep these in Bant decks.
Oops, yes, should be same three colors. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteOk, latest revision
Hedron of Bant
Artifact
T: Add w g or u
1wgI, t: tap target creature
I had a feeling there might be "cares about hedrons" cards like with gates, although that's always hard to make a big enough theme to matter. Probably better without it.
I also forgot one more thing, change the name to reflect "obelisk of bant" etc - the obelisks look a bit Hedron like to me, so let's pretend they secretly are :)
Alara makes me think of domain and five colors so I made this rampant growth/explosive vegetation variant that can use cards in your hand to increase the number of colors you can collect.
ReplyDeleteIt plays like a variant of kicker and retrace and thus is certainly worth testing with different designs.
Rifted Soil {2}{G}
Sorcery (C)
Search your library for a basic land card and put it into the battlefield tapped.
Splinter {1} (Until end of turn, you may cast land cards from your hand as a copy of this card by paying its splinter cost.)
That's an eye-popping mechanic! Spend spare lands in hand, like retrace, but only at the moment of casting the spell; but in exchange you get much cheaper copies of a good effect.
DeleteI foresee some problems, though. Suppose there's a "burn creature for 3" spell with this. You have a 4/5 or 3/6 that I need to kill. I'm hoping to draw that burn spell, so I hold back lands, impairing my ability to cast my other spells. Even worse if you have a 3/7 or the burn spell only hits for 2: then I might be holding back two lands just against the hope of drawing my splinter burn spell.
That said, I guess Flame Jab could have had similar arguments against it; and retrace ended up working rather well. So sure, give it some testing. :)
This is a nice idea, but seems really confusing. How about one of these...
DeleteHarvest (You may discard a land card as you cast this spell. If you do, put this card into your hand as it resolves.)
or
Splice onto Lands [cost] (As you play a Land card, you may reveal this card from your hand and pay its splice cost. If you do, cast a copy of this spell without paying its mana cost.)
Did anyone volunteer for renders yet? If so let me know, cause I'm going to start doing them tonight. (This is the trick to getting a card in past deadline btw).
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDelete