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 00:04:47)
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-19 00:04:47)
Changed power/toughness from 3/2 to 6/4, changed casting cost from 2rr to 5r, increased the cost of the ability that grants flying from r to 1r and changed it from "creature you don't control" to "creature your opponent controls."
Removed the cycling ability and added the second ability that counts the number of your cities.
Maybe I've been primed by jmgariepy's set. There the set land type is "Lair", and it appears on a common cycle that does one thing, an uncommon cycle that does a different thing, and a rare cycle that does a third thing. I didn't read "City" as automatically implying "only does anything if you control two or more Cities", but it sounds like you did.
I guess Alexander should take note of the potential for confusion or expectation-breaking, at least.
Ah, I see. Yeah, that makes sense, but I think it's usual to have a more generic version of something in colourless.
I guess so. It just seems so divorced from the rest of the cycle. They all "Do what this does, until you've got two multiple and then they're exciting". This is "Never exciting, but hey, you can get rid of it if you like"
Seems a bit of a turnaround, is all.
@Vitenka: It's fine to say free cycling doesn't appeal to you. Just recognise that it does appeal to a lot of people, especially Spikes. (I really dislike discard effects personally myself, but I put some in my sets anyway because I'm designing for people other than myself.)
Most Spikes would play a 56-card deck in a heartbeat if they could. This isn't quite that (see also Mishra's Bauble, which didn't see as much play as people said it might), but it gives you protection from drawing it when you're mana-flooded, which is a jolly nice feature for a land to have.
@Alexander: I think it's fine to have an ETB-untapped colourless land with a good cycling ability. Just as long as it can't cycle from play. That's so crazily powerful that it needs Horizon Canopy levels of hosing.
Oh weird. This is rather like my Lair cycle, that Tanglewood Nest is a part of. There are big enough difference that they feel like different things, but if they were printed in back to back blocks, players would be scratching their heads, neh?
Hmm, there's "as long as you control another" and "unless you control another" which was what I was thinking of. "Do not activate this ability unless you control another" is... clunky.
Yeah, these are really interesting. I'm not sure when I should play them and when not. They may not be very playable in limited, since you need several to be worth it, but they're good if you can get some of the common land. And in constructed, you probably don't have a high reliability of hitting your second land drop -- but OTOH, when you do get one of these, it works immediately without waiting a turn. So they may well be about right, I'm not sure.
And of course, very cool for a five-colour deck :)
Hm. I like this design quite a bit, but I agree -- the cycling ability is quite strong, whereas it might make more sense for the common colourless city to be weaker, so there's an interesting question of whether to run it in conjunction with other cities or not. It pains me to say it, but perhaps this needs one of those "occasionally useful but quite weak" abilities (possibly still cycling, but more expensively? even that might be fairly good).
I'm not sure, I think it's fine for the rare one to care about more cities.
@Vitenka I just did a search of magiccards.info and I couldn't find any cards to template for "only if you control another~" so I'm still not seeing a point of consensus we can reach on how this ought to be officially worded.
Mmm, fair enough. I guess once you've got enough lands it does mean not wasting a draw. It just doesn't excite me, though it does enable the rest of the cycle. I look at this and say "Ok, I could... sacrifice a land and not have drawn this. Or... I could not put it in my deck in the first place." I'd much rather play with cycle-lands that don't consume my next turns resources; though I can see that in a pinch "Ok, add blue to my pool, now sacc that hoping to this hoping to draw an answer..." is important.
@Alex Yeah, I know this one is powerful. I liked Edge of Autumn's cycling ability a lot (I thought it had good synergy with either wanting to seek mana or card advantage depending on your current board state). I hate lands that come into play tapped but I don't know what other restriction I could put on this. Maybe sacrificing two land? Sacrificing a land and X life? I'd like to see some more comments on this, but I know it's probably too powerful as is.
Yeah, but Leechridden Swamp isn't itself a black permanent. Not invading rules-poland, just thought it might sound better :)
@Vitenka I modeled the "Activate this ability only if you control two or more cities" restriction on the Shadowmoor lands (Leechridden Swamp and the rest of that cycle).
Yeah, I like these. They sortof ETBT in that they can't provide coloured mana on turn 1, like the Glacial Fortress cycle. This does depower very quick aggro strategies to some extent.
A two-colour deck would have to consider the colourless one (City) or the rare one (Witch's World), which is interesting in itself. Good job.
@Vitenka: Cycling lands are very powerful. Ones that cycle away for no mana even more so. I'd play this in a number of decks even if it weren't for the uncommon cycle.
This is actually pretty similar to Edge of Autumn.
@Vitenka I envisioned this card as a better Blasted Landscape. Your suggestion would definitely make this an uncommon or a rare and I think this cycle needs a common city to work in limited.
I understand why this one has to be weakened compared to the rest of the cycle - but it being a different number of lands is unfortunately fiddly and people are likely to forget.
Still, without some restriction this could become WAY too 5-colour-splash enabling. I don't know what to suggest, really. Maybe ETB tapped and then 2-city restriction the other duals have? Maybe no option?
The wording could maybe be "control another city"? Anyhow; I do kinda like this cycle.
In 2 colours they probably aren't worth going for; the chances of getting 2 are too low. But in three you can run 12 of them and now you're cooking with some serious nearly-real-dual gas. Whilst (probably) avoiding it breaking and being too good on turns 1 and 2.
This seems pretty weak, to me. Though I understand you wanted a seventh colourless land for the set this just doesn't seem exciting.
How about :Add , unless you control another city, in which case add or something like that?
I've added the mandatory cycle of multicolored lands for my set. For the purpose of comparing this cycle of "cities" to the whole Locus fiasco that happened in Modern a while back, there will only ever be these 7 cities and not one more. Please think about that as you comment on my idea for dual lands.
Changed from rare to uncommon.