Right, which is why I said their relative power level depends on when you cast them. On turn 6, your opponent probably doesn't even have a land left in hand. Otoh, if you cast this on turn 2 or 3 and cause your opponent to miss their 4th land drop entirely, it's very hard for them to recover from that. Plus you get to develop a four drop on turn four, which is way better than the poor tempo play of Demolish
@dude: Mm. But Demolish sets an opponent's development back a whole turn. Discarding a land may not effect you until a much later round. And discarding a land past round 6 is unlikely to have any real effect, while destroying a land past round 6 very well could mean the game.
I'm not arguing about power level, because you're probably right when it comes to giving a card like this a proper casting costs. I just wouldn't draw a direct line in power level between land discard and land destruction. They aren't equivalent.
It's actually plausible that a metagame with this card would be reasonably balanced. After all, you're giving up a card and your 2-drop in order to hit a land. To defeat this card utterly, I just need to have a really good 2-drop; or slightly more land in my deck.
But. The problem is that the games this wins it doens't win cleanly. The game drags on for turns with the caster having a significant advantage but the defender still being able to do SOME stuff. And they might even be able to turn it around. But usually they won't.
The current level of land destruction in Standard is Demolish, and this gets more powerful than land destruction the earlier in the game you cast it. And this is 100% a power level concern, because the more often this locks your opponent out of the game, the more often you win, and the more often you win, the more powerful it is
This isn't really about power level. Targeting lands leads to stalled out games. And since one of the biggest criticisms of Magic is about how X percentage of games leads to mana screw, Wizards found it was just better to make land destruction/taxing strategies unrealistic, at least until the late game kicks in.
It's why Wizards is starting to implement the London Mulligan rule. Sure, it leads to more predictable games, and bolsters non-interactive combo decks. But at least, if a player has enough lands vs. spells, then that player got a chance to play the game.
For what it's worth, I think the 'power level' of Diaspora is right on the money. After all, Encroach didn't see much use back in the day... mostly because it was more restrictive than the killer card Duress. But Stone Rain seems perfectly balanced to me too, considering that it was only used occasionally in the highest level of tournament play. Wizards still killed the card, though, because it lead to unfun games and hurt their brand.
Interestingly, since this doesn't say "opponent" late game it's also kinda good to use on yourself (though it's at best a cantrip). But yeah, early game this is devastating.
Opponent casts this on turn 2, and hits a land? Might as well concede right there.
Here's the really weird thing about this card: On round 2, it's devastating. On round 7 it's also devastating. It's devastating for the person who cast this spell since its more likely to help the opponent than hurt them.
For that reason, I agree that this isn't a common at any casting cost. It's not about power level. You wouldn't want a new player putting four of these in their deck and casting them whenever they see them. New players don't fully grasp how the game operates yet. They presume that if they draw a spell, they should always cast that spell. Realizing, six games in, that the spell they've been casting makes them lose the game is a sort of betrayal.
Sickeningly powerful since Grim Tutor is already playable/competitive in itself. I'm quite certain this would have to be insta-banned in EDH for example. Only card I can think of right that is even close to this is Demonic Collusion(another recurring tutor).
> Target creature gets -2/-2 UEOT. If it has a counter on it, destroy it instead.
That's kind of wonky with indestructible creatures, so maybe it should just get like -7/-7 UEOT instead or have it read as "..., then if it has a counter on it, ...
EDIT: Eye Gouge says the solution is just to omit the "instead"
> Target creature gets -2/-2 UEOT. If it has a counter on it, destroy it.
uncommon instant "Destroy target creature with a counter on it." While counters are prevalent in the large set, I think the restriction should have this cost less. The cost is being changed from to . In the future a different card may take this spot.
That's quite a mighty mana-ramp; and cheap! I guess it does have a downside that it's all dependant on the opponent not pulling out land-destruction; but that's a pretty safe bet. And of course it's vulnerable to killin.
But... yeah; this is +3 mana and fixes two different colours you couldn't previously create. Youch.
What do you mean by "what green is"? While I'm not a huge fan of the card, it was all I could come up with to show death and despair in green (is already given white artifact and enchantment removal).
I most likely forgot how I was wording the ability when kung this card. I think I used the wording of of Element Evader's text on the other cards with shirk.
The shirk trigger occurs when you activate shirk.
The additional timing ability may not be necessary.
I know little of design, why is a delayed replacement effect a bad design choice?
Right, which is why I said their relative power level depends on when you cast them. On turn 6, your opponent probably doesn't even have a land left in hand. Otoh, if you cast this on turn 2 or 3 and cause your opponent to miss their 4th land drop entirely, it's very hard for them to recover from that. Plus you get to develop a four drop on turn four, which is way better than the poor tempo play of Demolish
@dude: Mm. But Demolish sets an opponent's development back a whole turn. Discarding a land may not effect you until a much later round. And discarding a land past round 6 is unlikely to have any real effect, while destroying a land past round 6 very well could mean the game.
I'm not arguing about power level, because you're probably right when it comes to giving a card like this a proper casting costs. I just wouldn't draw a direct line in power level between land discard and land destruction. They aren't equivalent.
It's actually plausible that a metagame with this card would be reasonably balanced. After all, you're giving up a card and your 2-drop in order to hit a land. To defeat this card utterly, I just need to have a really good 2-drop; or slightly more land in my deck.
But. The problem is that the games this wins it doens't win cleanly. The game drags on for turns with the caster having a significant advantage but the defender still being able to do SOME stuff. And they might even be able to turn it around. But usually they won't.
The current level of land destruction in Standard is Demolish, and this gets more powerful than land destruction the earlier in the game you cast it. And this is 100% a power level concern, because the more often this locks your opponent out of the game, the more often you win, and the more often you win, the more powerful it is
This isn't really about power level. Targeting lands leads to stalled out games. And since one of the biggest criticisms of Magic is about how X percentage of games leads to mana screw, Wizards found it was just better to make land destruction/taxing strategies unrealistic, at least until the late game kicks in.
It's why Wizards is starting to implement the London Mulligan rule. Sure, it leads to more predictable games, and bolsters non-interactive combo decks. But at least, if a player has enough lands vs. spells, then that player got a chance to play the game.
For what it's worth, I think the 'power level' of Diaspora is right on the money. After all, Encroach didn't see much use back in the day... mostly because it was more restrictive than the killer card Duress. But Stone Rain seems perfectly balanced to me too, considering that it was only used occasionally in the highest level of tournament play. Wizards still killed the card, though, because it lead to unfun games and hurt their brand.
Spells that remove lands, even from hand, can't cost less than 3. They can't be common unless they cost at least 4, really
Well; not at any casting cost where it would be relevant, no.
You need land to play the game. Early-game land discard is a shut-out in the most un-fun way possible.
Alright, can I do common land discard, since that's what I'm going for?
Interestingly, since this doesn't say "opponent" late game it's also kinda good to use on yourself (though it's at best a cantrip). But yeah, early game this is devastating.
Opponent casts this on turn 2, and hits a land? Might as well concede right there.
Here's the really weird thing about this card: On round 2, it's devastating. On round 7 it's also devastating. It's devastating for the person who cast this spell since its more likely to help the opponent than hurt them.
For that reason, I agree that this isn't a common at any casting cost. It's not about power level. You wouldn't want a new player putting four of these in their deck and casting them whenever they see them. New players don't fully grasp how the game operates yet. They presume that if they draw a spell, they should always cast that spell. Realizing, six games in, that the spell they've been casting makes them lose the game is a sort of betrayal.
Followed SecretInfiltrator's advice
Hmm, yeah I guess it could go back to being a 4 cost.
Sickeningly powerful since Grim Tutor is already playable/competitive in itself. I'm quite certain this would have to be insta-banned in EDH for example. Only card I can think of right that is even close to this is Demonic Collusion (another recurring tutor).
Reduced cost from
to 
changed name from "Reflection Spell."
I would go along the lines of
> Target creature gets -2/-2 UEOT. If it has a counter on it, destroy it instead.
That's kind of wonky with indestructible creatures, so maybe it should just get like -7/-7 UEOT instead or have it read as "..., then if it has a counter on it, ...
EDIT: Eye Gouge says the solution is just to omit the "instead"
> Target creature gets -2/-2 UEOT. If it has a counter on it, destroy it.
uncommon instant "Destroy target creature with a counter on it." While counters are prevalent in the large set, I think the restriction should have this cost less. The cost is being changed from 
to 
. In the future a different card may take this spot.
Following SecretInfiltrator's suggestion
I suspect granting a toughness boost with hearty would be much more sensible.
Increased 4 life to 5
Increased cost to 3
That's quite a mighty mana-ramp; and cheap! I guess it does have a downside that it's all dependant on the opponent not pulling out land-destruction; but that's a pretty safe bet. And of course it's vulnerable to killin.
But... yeah; this is +3 mana and fixes two different colours you couldn't previously create. Youch.
Thanks. I'll edit when I have access to a computer.
What do you mean by "what green is"? While I'm not a huge fan of the card, it was all I could come up with to show death and despair in green (is already given white artifact and enchantment removal).
I most likely forgot how I was wording the ability when kung this card. I think I used the wording of of Element Evader's text on the other cards with shirk.
The shirk trigger occurs when you activate shirk.
The additional timing ability may not be necessary.
I know little of design, why is a delayed replacement effect a bad design choice?
I don't disagree; the card would be more appropriate in green.
Land discard felt flavorful going off of the name. Would increasing the cmc to 3 or make the cost BB work?
This should be an intervening if-clause ("At the beginning ..., if ..., you may ....")
Same is true for hearty reminder text, I think.