Cool Card Design of the Day11/2/2015 - I was brainstorming spell lands a few weeks back and was iterating on a few ideas, toward an alternative to the very good Looming Spires and Teetering Peeks spell land cycles. Specifically, it was evident that we could have a more impactful effect if, like more expensive spells, it only worked when you had more mana or lands. A large activation cost worked, but if it's repeatable, the effect must be fairly small, so I considered a land that did something when you sacrificed it, rather then when it ETB'd. That's cool, but fights with the goal of having enough mana to cast Eldrazi. Let me show you my final iteration before I share my conclusion:
What I discovered, to my amusement, was that I had ended up on the same path that ended with Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle's cycle. Mine is more common-minded than rare, only working once, but the principal is nearly identical. Scooped by the professionals again!
This really needs to ETB tapped so it isn't strictly better than a Forest, but then it looks a lot less Common I think.
ReplyDeleteStill a neat design.
This isn't strictly better than a Forest. Having the basic supertype and the Forest subtype is significant in modern Magic. Is it enough to justify this upgrade? Likely not, but we can agree the discussion is radically different today than it was back when they made the nothing-better-than-a-basic-land guideline.
DeleteThey have been very clear [citation needed] that not having a basic land type does not justify a boost above a basic land.
DeleteIt is clear why this is, as it would essentially mandate four copies in every deck deck of its color in standard (unless Fetchlands were around, but I'm optimistic that will never happen again). That is very undesirable.
For me, nothing has changed to make me question the "nothing better than a basic land" guideline up for debate.
"Nothing has changed?" There are 253 cards that only work with or reward basic lands or landtypes or that punish nonbasic lands. I'm totally fine with "not enough has changed" but 253 is a whole lot more than nothing.
DeleteWhy is having four copies of an alternate basic land "very undesirable" regardless of rarity?
For limited, I think strictly better basic lands are fine. They'd make great silver border cards in the next Conspiracy set (which I hope is not multiplayer focused).
DeleteBut looking at constructed, 253 is the tiniest drop in the bucket in Magic's history, it is less than 2%. Given that decks usually run 10-15 distinct cards, you're unlikely to run across the cards that care about basic land types and non-basics "in the wild." WOTC has also learned their lesson about printing Wasteland-esque punisher cards, so about the worst that is going to happen from your opponent is that you're going to get hit with some 4 mana Stone Rain with slight upside (a card I would beg my opponents to play).
As for why it is bad for everyone to run four copies of an alternate basic land: deck building is all about choices and opportunity costs. You are suggesting a land that has no opportunity cost for 90+% of decks, and thus you are essentially advocating for pure power creep.
Would Magic be better if they had continued printing the alpha-duals in every set (at low rarity), and never printed any other "dual" lands, thus setting the power bar for lands at the power of the alpha-duals instead of at the basics? I think it is very likely it would. But that isn't the land we live in, an decades of development pin the power level of lands and the cards that surround them to basics.
I'm on Tommy's side here. this isn't something we want to happen to constructed.
DeleteI mean deck building aside thing of the widening price gap it creates. Barrier to entry is already one of the biggest dangers to MtG.
It seems like when we're talking about Constructed here, we mean Standard specifically. I agree that these would likely become auto-plays in a Standard that doesn't also include a tournament-worthy mechanic that favors basic over nonbasics, but I doubt many Modern decks would want more than 1-3 of these, and believe even fewer Legacy decks would want more than 1.
DeleteI also have to point out that this effect is fairly weak: It only happens once, and only if you reach six lands. You have to pay for it, and will only use it if you don't have a six-mana spell to cast. It's sorcery-speed, and like a Seal, something opponents can plan a response to. Now, it is still a free Giant Growth in the optimal situation, and that's considerable for a land that doesn't ETB tapped. It could potentially cost more to use, or offer a smaller bonus (but that option seems self-defeating).
DeleteIf none of those considerations are enough to mitigate its ubiquity—and I'm not saying they should be, only that the guideline needs to be considered more thoroughly—I'd be fine with making something identical that only produces colorless mana.
The game absolutely has space for cards that are strictly better than other cards, but all cases need to be carefully considered. Basic lands are the one constant across all formats. Effectively choosing to remove them from the game by printing better cards is a big mistake in my opinion. Bear in mind that once the door is opened, your Giant Growth land won't be the only better land, there will be a whole menagerie of them, and the least fun part of constructed (what should my mana base look like) will just get even more annoying and less fun.
Delete[It should be noted that, even if you restrict to only pro players, only the tiniest percentage have a clue how to build a good mana base in constructed. I have been playing for over 20 years, and if you gave me the 36 non-land cards for a Modern deck and asked me to build a mana base for it, I would have basically no idea what to do. Mana bases are one of the worst parts of constructed, and I don't think there is anything that can be done to fix that at this point.]
I'd far prefer, btw, that we always put the basic land type on lands like yours that produce Green mana and then always include a downside.
Shouldn't adding effects to lands make choosing lands more challenging and interesting? That challenge may not be fun for everyone, I agree, but that contradicts the auto-build argument made earlier.
DeleteI'm not sold on the idea of putting Forest+downside on every land that produces green, because that makes "Search for a Forest" effects much stronger when their intention is to be limited. (I'm also not entirely opposed to the idea.)
Giant Forest
ReplyDeleteLand
T: Add G to your mana pool.
G, T, sacrifice giant forest: Target creature gains +3/+3 until end of turn. Play this ability only if you control 7 or more lands
Strictly better than forest still but also is an on board trick compared to the ETB effect of the original.
DeleteOn board tricks on lands are especially unpleasant in paper.
DeleteThat's interesting. I really like the idea of ETB lands, but never got on with them when I actually saw them.
ReplyDeleteI'd ideally like an effect which happens when the land is played, but isn't wasted on T1, I know that's basically impossible to achieve...
I have concerns about missing this trigger and feeling bad. Valakut is a rare (more memorable) and if you miss the first time you can at least remember it next mountain. It could be worded more like Valakut and gain a depletion counter or something when you use it. I'm not saying that putting counters on lands is a great solution but it is something to consider.
ReplyDelete