Madoka Magi-ka: Recent Activity
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-19 06:50:55)
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-19 06:50:55)
Hey! I need someone to confirm whether this card conforms with Magic standards for text templates. This card's design was inspired by the Shoal cycle from Betrayers. (see Blazing Shoal).
Yeah, this is a good rare sorcery that should exist in some colour or other, but I don't quite know which.
I could see it in blue, actually. While blue wizards often play signets, that's mostly because their own color rarely includes fast mana. It's also very rare for blue to sacrifice (this spell would be a shoe in for blue if it bounced) but it does on occasion... this card feels a bit reminiscent of Fade Away and Rishadan Cutpurse.
While we're talking about the color pie, I might mention that this card is a way to get rid of enchantments, and red normally has a problem with that. I'd ignore that peccadillo if there weren't other color pie problems.
The wording seems fine to me.
As an effect that doesn't really have a place, this seems fine in red, but I could also see it fitting in white.
I'm going to let someone else field that... I'd just like to say good job finding this space. That's a really good ability. Personally, I'd move it away from the number one land destruction color, since you should probably have to work to match this up with Stone Rain, and I'm sure some people will have a problem with the fact that red is the color of fast mana... so it seems weird that red would also be the color that punishes fast mana.
I must ask if I'm templating this correctly to fit with the way that Wizards words card text.
Oh, no, those aren't my problems. My problem is that if a player wants to make a deck, they should be able to put 23 Forests in their deck and not have to apologize for that decision. Sometimes you want to spend time crafting a perfect mana base, and sometimes you just want to play the game. You should have a worse deck because you didn't optimize your mana base, but you shouldn't have an obviously worse deck because you didn't optimize your mana base.
The argument about sub-types is relevant, and I agree that there are plenty of reasons to play basic forest over Arbor. That said, if you're given a choice between running a Goblin Hero because your deck has 4x Goblin Warchief, and running Uthden Troll, you should run the Uthden Troll. Uthden Troll is just that much better a card. You should stop playing Goblin Warchief instead.
In that sense, a Basic Forest can never keep pace with a card like this. Sure, Forest works with Rampant Growth... but Arbor is such a better land card that you shouldn't play Rampant Growth... if this sort of non-basic land was the norm, then all the current cards that interacted with basic lands would become indirectly obsolete.
I'd play with an example or two, but I'm pretty sure I can't prove that without a lot of rigorous play-testing, so I'll leave it at that. It's unfortunate, but this is one of those subjects that you can't prove or disprove without exploring an alternate universe worth of Magic cards. My second argument is more brain candy anyway. It't the first paragraph which I consider important. If Magic is to be a fun game played by the most amount of players, it has to be accessible. Basic lands are accessible, and encourage more players to play, but they can only be accessible if they are always a viable option with or without the sub-types. The more players that play, the more complex the game can get, because the game has more funding to work on more projects.
Changed from "If Arbor was built" to "When Arbor is built" because it's an ETB effect, unlike kicker.
@jmgariepy I don't think lands that produce colored mana, have additional abilities and don't ETB tapped will obsolete basic lands, because tutoring lands is a powerful effect that continually pops up in Magic. And 99% of the time, you don't get to tutor just any old land; it has to be a basic land. Just consider Rampant Growth or plainscycling and basic landcycling. I think that for this reason, cards like this will not make basic lands obsolete in formats where they are not already obsolete.
Heh, yeah... I almost wish MaRo didn't let that on to the rest of the world. It kind of spoils the magic. I remember when Kicker came out... I didn't understand the need for the keyword. Why not just write it out? I get it now... but now I wish they never keyworded it for the 'every mechanic has kicker' problem.
This works by me, and it would be nice to see this mechanic pop up in real Magic. Well, except for the part where I don't like to obsolete basic lands, but that conversation is a dead end.
I've templated Build to look more like Kicker now. See Gatekeeper of Malakir for reference. Does this make more sense?
It really is true what Mark Rosewater says, almost all abilities that require an additional mana cost are some form of Kicker. I've simply made Build a Kicker for lands.
Changed the wording of Build to match Kicker.
Long dashes, and everything written before one, don't have in game effects. The purpose of a long dash is to group a bunch of disparate abilities under one keyword, but that keyword doesn't really dictate what that ability does (and there's never been a card that references a keyword before a long dash... so far...). Link mentioned Landfall, which is a good example. Some cards with Landfall say:
Landfall — Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, ~ gets +2/+2 until end of turn.
But Fledgling Griffin, for example, reads:
Landfall — Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, Fledgling Griffin gains flying until end of turn.
In both these cases, the word 'Landfall' has no game relevance. It just helps players tie the mechanics of a set together.
Oh, and while I'm here, I'd suggest cutting the 'from your hand' part. Sometimes there's a good reason to include that line... for example, the card might do something wrong or unexpected if it came into play wrong, or allowing the card to trigger from other zones would ruin the established tournament environment. Otherwise, it just increases the amount of text on the card for no particular reason, and will upset a segment of the audience that likes to find unexpected ways to abuse their cards.
It makes sense, but I don't think that's the way it would be done by Wizards. They would probably word it as an ability word, like Landfall, rather than a keyword. So:
Build — When ~ ETBs from your hand, you may pay [mana]. If you do, [stuff].
Is the Build ability templated correctly to fit the standard wording of Magic rules?
Changed the name so it's not the same as a Magic card already in existence.
Cost seems fine to me, unless playtesting finds it's too good.
Yeah, a bunch of really good names were taken by Homelands and The Dark.
Arrgh. Name taken... The name is so perfect for the creative flavor behind this card that I'm not going to change it until I can think of something better.
Added flavor text.
I've always been a bit weirded by how all over the map exiling cards in graveyards is. I guess it's the 'graveyard matters' sets. Sometimes Wizards doesn't want you to monkey with your opponent's graveyard unless they are making great strains to interact with the opponent (see Odyssey block), and sometimes the graveyard effects are a strong secondary theme, and Wizards would really like there to be some super-effecient hosers to make sure the sub-theme doesn't spiral out of control (see Innistrad).
This is certainly strong, but I guess you got a good reason for it with this set, since exiling matters. I don't think I can give any more advice than that when it comes to the cost, though. I get the impression that the correct answer would be "whatever is the most fun right now". If you want it to be easy to exile whole graveyards in a go, this is on the money. If you want players to work for it, I could see you charging up to more for this. Either way would probably be fine.
The name, regrettably, has been taken however. Everyone Forgets Homelands... for good reason.
A really simple card Wizards hasn't made yet and considering the cost of Tormod's Crypt this CMC is probably right on the money. Any thoughts?
Is this change too confusing? Is it going to make people have to read the card too closely to see the difference between the effects?