The issue with fast mana seems to be that it's most useful in powering ridiculous storm combo decks. Which is very understandable, but it means you don't usually get to plonk down a 3/3 on turn one, which is what it LOOKS like it's for.

I wonder that wizards haven't tried to make a card like this, that's fast mana but works a lot less well with big combo turns.

What would be a fair mana production for this, if it only lets you get an actual card, not one step closer to a dragonstorm? Is too much?

I think the "costs less" template is nicer, but I think it's essentially identical to "add RRR to your mana pool, use only to cast creature spells", is that right? And wizards usually use the latter.

Alternatively, this could say "you may pay 0 rather than the mana cost of the next spell you play this turn with CMC <=3". That allows you to play a 3/3 on turn 1, but not go "birth in fire, birth in fire, birth in fire, eldrazi" on turn 3. But the first bit is probably the most dangerous bit, since green acceleration can nearly do the latter anyway.

It might be even safer if this was "exile" like simian spirit guide, but there's probably not enough recursion in standard for it to matter.

Alternatively, this could say "Add RRR. You may play only one more card this turn" or something, so you can spend the mana on burn spells if you want, but not further enablers? Is that better?

If you were asked to print a "safe" fast mana, what would you do? Would it be better if it asked you to discard ANOTHER card as well?

­Geosurge is basically this idea, isn't it? I think that's a lot clearer and easier to understand.

Is {1R} meant to be a hybrid / symbol, i.e. {1/R}, like ?

Yeah, you're right, it is basically geosurge but on turn 1, I'd forgotten that because it didn't seem to get people excited, but I wonder what would get people excited.

I don't know why I'm not more excited by geosurge: playing a 7CMC creature on turn 4 OUGHT to be exciting, but someone it seems to trip my "oh, it'll never really happen" button rather than my "ooh, I wonder if..." button...

Yes, {1R} is supposed to be 1 or R. Obviously wizards probably wouldn't make the mana symbol just for this card, but it seemed the best way to express it (assuming hybrid cost reduction works how I expect). But if you use the geosurge template, it doesn't need it.

Reducing by will already take off if there's no red mana in the cost, so the strange hybrid symbol isn't even necessary.

Any conceivable use for 1/C has been rendered somewhat obsolete by color indicators.

Ah, I'd forgotten that, you're right. (Thank you.) I changed it to be for now. Although that probably could be confusing to people, it probably should change to be "add to your mana pool. spend this mana only on"

Heh. Priest of Urabrask does a funny job, rewashing the mana back into normal . This gives you the classic Dark Ritual into Priest of Gix, Priest of Gix, Phyrexian Negator, except, replace the Negator with some other relevent modern spell. (If only the priests were goblins...)

Alternatively, there must be something that can make this go crazy with an early mana producer? Fortunately, round 1/2 Wirewood Channelers kind of need some other elves to be broken... but you get the idea. I can't think of the card, but I have a hard time imagining there isn't something on par with Gilded Lotus in the creature zone.

Actually, this reduces cost by exactly . Priest of Urabrask will cost . Only cards that cost exactly , , or will be free.

Not so; the offering ability (Patron of the Akki) will gladly take off-color mana as a cost reduction, and if you have a Sphere of Resistance and nine green creatures, Khalni Hydra is still free. This is why Edgewalker is forced to state the limit on its otherwise-ridiculous cost reduction in rules text rather than reminder text.

By making this "costs less to play" rather than "add to your mana pool", it does open up the avenue of playing Myr Superion for a restriction-free . In return, though, you can't do something like play three Reckless Waifs on turn 1. Which is more important?

PS. I probably should have quoted the relevant comprehensive rule, when SM pointed it out. It's not the default, that reduces , it's an extra clause in the rules to make it work the way people would expect.

> 117.7. What a player actually needs to do to pay a cost may be changed or reduced by effects. If the mana component of a cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it‘s considered to be . Paying a cost changed or reduced by an effect counts as paying the original cost.
> 117.7a If a cost is reduced by an amount of colored mana, but its colored mana component doesn‘t contain mana of that color, the cost is reduced by that amount of generic mana.
> 117.7b If a cost is reduced by an amount of colored mana that exceeds its mana component of that color, the cost‘s mana component of that color is reduced to nothing and the cost‘s generic mana component is reduced by the difference.

It goes on to talk about hybrid & phyrexian mana.

(Alex, is there an automatic way of linking to a section of the rules? :))

Heh. There isn't, but it's a good idea... although if I use a local copy of the rules that'd then leave me needing to update Multiverse every time a CompRules update comes out.

Yeah, I'm not sure how it would actually be implemented, I wonder if any of the existing magic forums have a markup tag for "link to rules"? If there were a reliable wiki that listed the current comprehensive rules by number and preferably archived old versions, that would be ideal, but I don't think anywhere actually keeps it up to date like that.