The original cycle just had three to four combinations of plus or minus 13, but white wanted to give it to a defender, so I gave targetting restrictions to all colours.
For a little while, white had +0/+13, which would be similar to this and an equally good common, but blue could only really be common, so white had to do something else.
Red would be +13/+0, but that was too similar to green and I couldn't have both.
Yeah, I agree it could be cheaper. In fact, maybe the whole cycle could be brought down in cost to keep it symmetric, U could definitely be cheaper and people already suggested it for W and B.
The original cycle just had three to four combinations of plus or minus 13, but white wanted to give it to a defender, so I gave targetting restrictions to all colours.
For a little while, white had +0/+13, which would be similar to this and an equally good common, but blue could only really be common, so white had to do something else.
Red would be +13/+0, but that was too similar to green and I couldn't have both.
By "defending," do you mean blocking? Also, Righteousness makes me wonder if this could actually cost
less.
It could probably cost
. Righteousness can sometimes table in a draft.
Yeah, I agree it could be cheaper. In fact, maybe the whole cycle could be brought down in cost to keep it symmetric, U could definitely be cheaper and people already suggested it for W and B.