CardName: Arcane Scriptorium
Cost:
Type: Land
Pow/Tgh: 3/
Rules Text: [0] Add {U} to your mana pool.
[-1] Draw a card.
Flavour Text:
Set/Rarity: Gentlemen Magicians Uncommon
I used Planeswalker in order to make the mockup correct, but I decided that in general these lands should use the same rules, but not have plansewalker type, even though that would be convenient for the rules, because in flavour they're special, but not really "planeswalker". I decided to assume the rules would make loyalty abilities and rules work for permanents with printed loyalty values, and not necessary need a new type.
Yeah, I was aware when I was writing my mockup code that it wouldn't let these lands get the loyalty frame very easily. If more people want to create non-Planeswalker cards with loyalty abilities (which seems like quite a nifty idea with a range of applications) then I'll provide some other way to specify in the card edit form that the card should use the loyalty frame.
BTW, do you really want the blue frame? Wouldn't the "Land (blue)" frame be more apt?
Yeah. It's not vital for this set, as I've still been doing the mockups in MtgGenerator (which isn't quite right for making land planeswalker frames either, I want to tweak the code). But I assume eventually you can add a "plansewalker/non-planeswalker/auto" checkbox?
You're right, "land blue" is plainly the right choices. I've put off deciding on the right frames until I'm sure how they should work.
Yep; also an "Artifact?" checkbox, and a "Pinline colours" drop-down (for things like Black and White and Red All Over). It's lower priority than most other enhancements though.
Ah, when I was commenting on this card last night, I thought the mana ability was +1 loyalty (Stuart was playing this card, whilst the three similar lands that I had in my deck all increased loyalty when giving mana). It's a lot more reasonable than I thought, and my suggestion of making the starting loyalty 1 makes no sense! It still might be slightly good given that it's an uncounterable way to (effectively) draw 2 cards for 2 mana. I'm not sure if the drawback of being attackable/burnable makes up for that, though.
Ah, I see! Then yes, I mostly agree. I need to rationalise the costs and abilities of the loyalty lands, they were mostly guesses, and I'm honestly pleased they weren't more degenerate, but I still don't know for sure what balanced costs and abilities are. (And thank you again for playtesting :))
Talk about pushing creatures. This on turn one is at the very least a free Divination (that requires you to give up a land drop) for any color. More often, though, it will be a free Concentrate which is downright broken.
Jace Beleren cost three and it was a fantastic card if you just used the -1 until he died.
to your mana pool.
Sorry, mockups are broken at the moment. It's due to a bug in the version of the Javascript library I'm using (!). Fix should be going live soon.
Ah, thank you. Don't worry.
There you go. Haha, my code copes quite well with "Planeswalker Land": I wasn't sure what it would do :)
This is a neat idea. And it does what you have always wanted,the ability to attack a land.
Lacking "Planeswalker" type.
I used Planeswalker in order to make the mockup correct, but I decided that in general these lands should use the same rules, but not have plansewalker type, even though that would be convenient for the rules, because in flavour they're special, but not really "planeswalker". I decided to assume the rules would make loyalty abilities and rules work for permanents with printed loyalty values, and not necessary need a new type.
Yeah, I was aware when I was writing my mockup code that it wouldn't let these lands get the loyalty frame very easily. If more people want to create non-Planeswalker cards with loyalty abilities (which seems like quite a nifty idea with a range of applications) then I'll provide some other way to specify in the card edit form that the card should use the loyalty frame.
BTW, do you really want the blue frame? Wouldn't the "Land (blue)" frame be more apt?
Yeah. It's not vital for this set, as I've still been doing the mockups in MtgGenerator (which isn't quite right for making land planeswalker frames either, I want to tweak the code). But I assume eventually you can add a "plansewalker/non-planeswalker/auto" checkbox?
You're right, "land blue" is plainly the right choices. I've put off deciding on the right frames until I'm sure how they should work.
Yep; also an "Artifact?" checkbox, and a "Pinline colours" drop-down (for things like Black and White and Red All Over). It's lower priority than most other enhancements though.
Ah, when I was commenting on this card last night, I thought the mana ability was +1 loyalty (Stuart was playing this card, whilst the three similar lands that I had in my deck all increased loyalty when giving mana). It's a lot more reasonable than I thought, and my suggestion of making the starting loyalty 1 makes no sense! It still might be slightly good given that it's an uncounterable way to (effectively) draw 2 cards for 2 mana. I'm not sure if the drawback of being attackable/burnable makes up for that, though.
Ah, I see! Then yes, I mostly agree. I need to rationalise the costs and abilities of the loyalty lands, they were mostly guesses, and I'm honestly pleased they weren't more degenerate, but I still don't know for sure what balanced costs and abilities are. (And thank you again for playtesting :))
Talk about pushing creatures. This on turn one is at the very least a free Divination (that requires you to give up a land drop) for any color. More often, though, it will be a free Concentrate which is downright broken.
Jace Beleren cost three and it was a fantastic card if you just used the -1 until he died.