That sounds very tedious, especially on MTGO, but restrictions and special mana types are a pain in general, and putting them on a whole cycle that you want to see play seems like a bad idea in general.
I think I would like this ability more on a tri-Signet. It does net mana, but it does not feel emotionally like this is is adding mana so much as fixing, so I viscerally want it to be an artifact.
I also think the kind of math this requires is tedious. If I have two Forests and this, can I cast Pernicious Deed? If I have two Forests and this, and I do cast Pernicious Deed, will my opponent notice? If I have two Forests and two of these, what mana combinations can I make? What if I have one of these, another in the cycle, and two Forests? Signet math is already pretty hard, but I think this is a couple additional steps up in complexity.
Some people will enjoy that puzzle, and others won't. In general, I like puzzles being "opt in," but I don't see an easy way to make lands/color fixing opt in, because either it is better than other options, in which case all serious players have to play it, or it isn't, in which case no one plays it. Maybe it can be better that cheap fixing and worse than expensive fixing so that the Johnny on a Budget can play it?
I note that the last time something like this was printed, it was rare - the Sungrass Prairie cycle. History's verdict on then is that they really should have had "T: Add 1" as well. The next version was Graven Cairns, which food have that, but was a bit different, primarily that it was also more useful for fixing BB or RR costs.
I disagree about this feeling like a mana rock. To me this feels like the natural continuation of Shimmering Grotto and Sungrass Prairie. I also don't find them at all problematic to calculate, but that's not actually relevant: if experienced players like Tommy would, then it shouldn't see print.
Cool Card Design of the Day
A possible drawback for a land like this, discovered via a Twitter convo with Chip:
ReplyDelete"This mana can't be spent to pay generic mana costs."
That sounds very tedious, especially on MTGO, but restrictions and special mana types are a pain in general, and putting them on a whole cycle that you want to see play seems like a bad idea in general.
DeleteI think I would like this ability more on a tri-Signet. It does net mana, but it does not feel emotionally like this is is adding mana so much as fixing, so I viscerally want it to be an artifact.
I also think the kind of math this requires is tedious. If I have two Forests and this, can I cast Pernicious Deed? If I have two Forests and this, and I do cast Pernicious Deed, will my opponent notice? If I have two Forests and two of these, what mana combinations can I make? What if I have one of these, another in the cycle, and two Forests? Signet math is already pretty hard, but I think this is a couple additional steps up in complexity.
Some people will enjoy that puzzle, and others won't. In general, I like puzzles being "opt in," but I don't see an easy way to make lands/color fixing opt in, because either it is better than other options, in which case all serious players have to play it, or it isn't, in which case no one plays it. Maybe it can be better that cheap fixing and worse than expensive fixing so that the Johnny on a Budget can play it?
I agree with all this. Well said.
DeleteI suspect this is unprintably good for 3-5 color decks.
ReplyDeleteCool. At all rarities?
DeleteI note that the last time something like this was printed, it was rare - the Sungrass Prairie cycle. History's verdict on then is that they really should have had "T: Add 1" as well. The next version was Graven Cairns, which food have that, but was a bit different, primarily that it was also more useful for fixing BB or RR costs.
ReplyDeleteI disagree about this feeling like a mana rock. To me this feels like the natural continuation of Shimmering Grotto and Sungrass Prairie. I also don't find them at all problematic to calculate, but that's not actually relevant: if experienced players like Tommy would, then it shouldn't see print.