Friday, July 29, 2016

CCDD 072916—Stone Reign

Cool Card Design of the Day
7/29/2016 - Stensia Innkeeper got me thinking about modern red land destruction. Here's another take.


Each turn, your opponent can choose to accept that they're down a land, or they can take 2 damage. Getting to decide each turn makes Stone Reign far less disruptive than Stone Rain, but all that damage could add up quick, especially against an aggressive red deck.


Here's the rare version, which guarantees your opponent can't save their mana by Naturalize-ing your enchantment. It's also a good demonstration of the design principle that more is not better. The point of Stone Reign isn't to force mana denial on your opponent, and so this clause defeats the design's virtue.

9 comments:

  1. This effect reminds me of Contaminated Ground or Psychic Venom. Those are fairly weak though, and Stone Reign is a worse effect. I do think this effect could have more of an impact in a red deck, and makes sense as Land Destruction Lite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't a red reprint of Psychic Venom just be a simpler way of doing this effect?

      Delete
  2. Trigger #1 is a massive logistical hassle, and trigger #2 just screams "abuse me with bounce effects!"

    I'd probably be okay with a 2R Stensia Innkeeper trigger, cantrip at common?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This way it fills a tempo role in a deck that wants to win before the opponent can cast big spells, rather than just randomly helping mana-screw people.

      Delete
    2. What makes trigger 1 a logistical hassle?

      Innkeeper cantrip could work. Maybe even at 1R.

      Delete
    3. It's the same as the Rhystic Study problem. The opponent is incentivized to say nothing and hope the controlling player missed it. The controlling player -may- be incentivized to say nothing and mark down 2 damage/draw a card after the opponent doesn't pay. If you have to do this dance every single turn cycle it gets old fast.

      Delete
    4. UGH. The missed triggers BS.
      Yup, you're right.

      Delete
  3. I like how this is almost "all your opponents' lands are shocklands" (better, actually, because it works when they aren't playing lands).

    ReplyDelete