2014-03-21 01:03:09:
Angle
commented on the cardset Metroid
It wouldn't be a super powerful theme, there'd probably only be a couple of rares, especially cause I feel the set is already a bit heavy on rares. I mainly thought it'd be interesting.
Encouraging players to play with Nonbasic Lands is odd. On one hand, you want to support players who either spend more money, or take more time to assemble a pile of cheap nonbasics. On the other hand, you don't want to discourage people who just throw a deck together and toss some basic lands in, or people who just don't have the bank to buy good nonbasics.
If I was to reward anybody for anything, I'd probably do it for Basic lands... but I can get the opposite approach. I guess it can go the other way on occasion. Would be doubly good if the set had a cycle of unique common and uncommon non-basics, like what popped out of Zendikar.
2014-03-20 23:54:18:
Angle
commented on the cardset Metroid
So perhaps "When ~ comes into play, sacrifice it unless you pay . This cost is reduced by for each nonbasic land you control."
2014-03-20 22:28:56:
Vitenka
commented on the cardset Metroid
Yeah, it needs a lot of comp rules fixing to allow lands with a cost. (Or rules on the card, as above)
But I do like the idea.
2014-03-20 21:38:03:
Link
commented on the cardset Metroid
It's a bad idea because you don't cast lands. Lands can't have a mana cost. Look at Rupture Spire if you want to see how a land having a "cost" is handled.
2014-03-20 19:50:07:
Angle
commented on the cardset Metroid
I'm considering a new Mechanic: Lands with mana costs and "Affinity for Nonbasic Lands". What do you think? Is this a bad idea?
It wouldn't be a super powerful theme, there'd probably only be a couple of rares, especially cause I feel the set is already a bit heavy on rares. I mainly thought it'd be interesting.
Encouraging players to play with Nonbasic Lands is odd. On one hand, you want to support players who either spend more money, or take more time to assemble a pile of cheap nonbasics. On the other hand, you don't want to discourage people who just throw a deck together and toss some basic lands in, or people who just don't have the bank to buy good nonbasics.
If I was to reward anybody for anything, I'd probably do it for Basic lands... but I can get the opposite approach. I guess it can go the other way on occasion. Would be doubly good if the set had a cycle of unique common and uncommon non-basics, like what popped out of Zendikar.
So perhaps "When ~ comes into play, sacrifice it unless you pay
. This cost is reduced by 
for each nonbasic land you control."
Yeah, it needs a lot of comp rules fixing to allow lands with a cost. (Or rules on the card, as above)
But I do like the idea.
It's a bad idea because you don't cast lands. Lands can't have a mana cost. Look at Rupture Spire if you want to see how a land having a "cost" is handled.
I'm considering a new Mechanic: Lands with mana costs and "Affinity for Nonbasic Lands". What do you think? Is this a bad idea?