Shrine of Penitent Offering
Legendary Enchantment Land - Shrine
T: Choose a color of a Shrine you control. Add one mana of that color.
When a Shrine you control becomes the target of a spell or ability, you may sacrifice CARDNAME. If you do, that Shrine gains hexproof until the end of turn.
Caveat: This is probably broken. I'm trying my best to make it not, but it probably is. Maybe not being able to generate mana without any Shrines in play is enough but *shrug*
Unfortunately I can't get a read on its power level by reading the card. As read it looks unplayable. It doesn't add mana until you play a shrine and it doesn't ever color fix. And it only protects from targeted removal once at the cost of that mana it was now generating.
The five color shrine deck in historic is playable and it would play thie but not in place of a land.
To make it more shrine like change the trigger into an activated ability similar to the white shrine from the coreset.
6,t: Sacrifice ~. Shrines you control gain indestructible and hexproof until end of turn. This ability costs 1 less to activate for each shrine you control
Ah, that's a good solution. And I'm not married to the current mana ability, but I couldn't think of a better way to balance it against being a free +1 for things that care about enchantments/shrines
Shrine of Penitent Offering
Legendary Enchantment Land - Shrine
T: Choose a color of a Shrine you control. Add one mana of that color.
6,t: Sacrifice ~. Shrines you control gain indestructible and hexproof until end of turn. This ability costs 1 less to activate for each shrine you control
I went with the original iteration so that the card would benefit from other shrines like the rest do. Not that the unknown shores idea is bad, I just though that the shrine type AND fixing would be a bit too strong together.
I honestly don't think either of those are broken though the sliver is probably pushing it. And your card is significantly stronger than the suggested card.
I honestly don't think either of those are broken though the sliver is probably pushing it. And your card is significantly stronger than the suggested card.
I honestly don't think either of those are broken though the sliver is probably pushing it. And your card is significantly stronger than the suggested card.
Neither of the cards I posted do anything though.
I'm confused. Are you arguing they aren't broken or are you questioning my statement about your cards being stronger?
If it's the stronger part. Your cards are significantly cheaper even though they both cost 0 mana. Your cards do almost the same amount but don't cost the land drop.
I honestly don't think either of those are broken though the sliver is probably pushing it. And your card is significantly stronger than the suggested card.
Neither of the cards I posted do anything though.
I'm confused. Are you arguing they aren't broken or are you questioning my statement about your cards being stronger?
If it's the stronger part. Your cards are significantly cheaper even though they both cost 0 mana. Your cards do almost the same amount but don't cost the land drop.
They also don't add mana or protect permanents for 0 mana.
I honestly don't think either of those are broken though the sliver is probably pushing it. And your card is significantly stronger than the suggested card.
Neither of the cards I posted do anything though.
I'm confused. Are you arguing they aren't broken or are you questioning my statement about your cards being stronger?
If it's the stronger part. Your cards are significantly cheaper even though they both cost 0 mana. Your cards do almost the same amount but don't cost the land drop.
They also don't add mana or protect permanents for 0 mana.
The land only adds mana if you already control a shrine and the cost to protect is significant unless you have a multitude of shrines.
I honestly don't think either of those are broken though the sliver is probably pushing it. And your card is significantly stronger than the suggested card.
Neither of the cards I posted do anything though.
I'm confused. Are you arguing they aren't broken or are you questioning my statement about your cards being stronger?
If it's the stronger part. Your cards are significantly cheaper even though they both cost 0 mana. Your cards do almost the same amount but don't cost the land drop.
They also don't add mana or protect permanents for 0 mana.
The land only adds mana if you already control a shrine and the cost to protect is significant unless you have a multitude of shrines.
So what you're saying is that it is only broken in the decks one would play it in?
I'm confused. Are you arguing they aren't broken or are you questioning my statement about your cards being stronger?
If it's the stronger part. Your cards are significantly cheaper even though they both cost 0 mana. Your cards do almost the same amount but don't cost the land drop.
They also don't add mana or protect permanents for 0 mana.
The land only adds mana if you already control a shrine and the cost to protect is significant unless you have a multitude of shrines.
So what you're saying is that it is only broken in the decks one would play it in?
He’s saying the opportunity cost of being behind on mana if played early in the game is significant compared to the advantages it grants where your 0 cost enchantment version has no such cost.
I'm confused. Are you arguing they aren't broken or are you questioning my statement about your cards being stronger?
If it's the stronger part. Your cards are significantly cheaper even though they both cost 0 mana. Your cards do almost the same amount but don't cost the land drop.
They also don't add mana or protect permanents for 0 mana.
The land only adds mana if you already control a shrine and the cost to protect is significant unless you have a multitude of shrines.
So what you're saying is that it is only broken in the decks one would play it in?
He’s saying the opportunity cost of being behind on mana if played early in the game is significant compared to the advantages it grants where your 0 cost enchantment version has no such cost.
There is most certainly an opportunity cost involved with playing a card that has no text, and/ or no power/ toughness. Not saying that a land not adding mana turn 1/2 doesn't, but it certainly carries the type line and mana value a lot further towards actually winning.
The difference is your card can be played in an early turn to increase your shrine count without slowing your mana development. Yes, the land has more utility when drawn in the late game, but for a shrine deck to start off a land behind and spend that land slot on something that doesn’t fix its mana is a meaningful cost, plus being a legendary land makes drawing the second one even more costly to developing your curve.
The difference is your card can be played in an early turn to increase your shrine count without slowing your mana development. Yes, the land has more utility when drawn in the late game, but for a shrine deck to start off a land behind and spend that land slot on something that doesn’t fix its mana is a meaningful cost, plus being a legendary land makes drawing the second one even more costly to developing your curve.
Yes, if you play your cards in a poor sequence, you will experience poor results.
But hey, when has an enchantment land with deck building restrictions and drawbacks that can disrupt your curve ever burned a designer?
[quote from="rowanalpha »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=16"]
But hey, when has an enchantment land with deck building restrictions and drawbacks that can disrupt your curve ever burned a designer?
Has one? To my knowledge such a card doesn't exist so how could it have burned its designer? If you are referring to Urza's Saga then you fundamentally don't understand either what that card does or what a deck building restriction is.
[quote from="rowanalpha »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=16"]
But hey, when has an enchantment land with deck building restrictions and drawbacks that can disrupt your curve ever burned a designer?
Has one? To my knowledge such a card doesn't exist so how could it have burned its designer? If you are referring to Urza's Saga then you fundamentally don't understand either what that card does or what a deck building restriction is.
</blockquote>
If he is referring to to Urza's Saga, he doesn't seem to get that (a) Saga can always produce mana n T1, (b) you can play a Urza's Saga if you still have one to get the benefits of both and (c) even though Saga dies it can generate multiples cards worth of advantage without having to have other cards than lands in play.
[quote from="rowanalpha »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=16"]
But hey, when has an enchantment land with deck building restrictions and drawbacks that can disrupt your curve ever burned a designer?
Has one? To my knowledge such a card doesn't exist so how could it have burned its designer? If you are referring to Urza's Saga then you fundamentally don't understand either what that card does or what a deck building restriction is.
</blockquote>
If she is referring to to Urza's Saga, she doesn't seem to get that (a) Saga can always produce mana n T1, (b) you can play a Urza's Saga if you still have one to get the benefits of both and (c) even though Saga dies it can generate multiples cards worth of advantage without having to have other cards than lands in play.
</blockquote>
I didn't say that this card is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that lands with multiple types and subtypes are always inherently risky. I am not some dumbass who can't read Urza's Saga and needs someone to pretty much read it to me, and would appreciate not being dismissed as such.
What I am saying is that your land has 2 types, a super type, and a subtype, adds mana consistently on the same curve as taplands, and protects the decks wincon from removal. If you cannot understand how that is broken yet not identical to a different card, then bless your heart and have a good day. It's not like either of us will ever have to care if this card is broken ot not anyways, for the zero times anybody will ever play it.
I didn't say that this card is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that lands with multiple types and subtypes are always inherently risky. I am not some dumbass who can't read Urza's Saga and needs someone to pretty much read it to me, and would appreciate not being dismissed as such.
You made a comparison using specific language when those aren't correct. Urza's saga doesn't have a deck building restriction. And while it does have drawbacks that can distrust your curve the place in which it distrust is completely different.
What I am saying is that your land has 2 types, a super type, and a subtype, adds mana consistently on the same curve as taplands, and protects the decks wincon from removal. If you cannot understand how that is broken yet not identical to a different card, then bless your heart and have a good day. It's not like either of us will ever have to care if this card is broken ot not anyways, for the zero times anybody will ever play it.
If you believe every land with an additional types broken you have ignored history and are arguing in bad faith. If you wish to discuss the actual similarities and compare them then that's fine but saying comparing it to a broken card that is can't be compared to at all doesn't further the discussion.
You're better off attempting to argue that the 0 cost shrine is broken and that it's similar enough to the land shrine that it's also probably broken rather than dredge up a broken card with only superficial similarities.
[quote from="GrowUpCutterbup »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=20"]
I didn't say that this card is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that lands with multiple types and subtypes are always inherently risky. I am not some dumbass who can't read Urza's Saga and needs someone to pretty much read it to me, and would appreciate not being dismissed as such.
You made a comparison using specific language when those aren't correct. Urza's saga doesn't have a deck building restriction. And while it does have drawbacks that can distrust your curve the place in which it distrust is completely different.
What I am saying is that your land has 2 types, a super type, and a subtype, adds mana consistently on the same curve as taplands, and protects the decks wincon from removal. If you cannot understand how that is broken yet not identical to a different card, then bless your heart and have a good day. It's not like either of us will ever have to care if this card is broken ot not anyways, for the zero times anybody will ever play it.
Which land with 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype has been not broken so far?
You're as free to run Urza's Saga without 0 and 1 cost artifacts as you are to run this land in a deck with no shrines.
What I am saying is that your land has 2 types, a super type, and a subtype, adds mana consistently on the same curve as taplands, and protects the decks wincon from removal. If you cannot understand how that is broken yet not identical to a different card, then bless your heart and have a good day.
Which land with 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype has been not broken so far?
I mean, when your criteria is what card named Urza's Saga isn't broken I can't really argue with you. But thats not really an argument for or against any future card. However, to address your concern. This doesn't add mana consistently on the same curve as taplands. A tapland adds mana the turn after it's played while this adds mana the moment you control a shrine with a color. Earliest turn two the same as a tapland but thats incredibly unlikely, though turn three is possibly but it sill requires a fair amount of luck on the players part.. If you believe the two are similar there is no further argument to be had. As for protecting a wincon. Yes, it does that. Its a powerful ability but it costs you a land, is telegraphed, and doesn't protect from all kinds of removal including some of the most heavily played removal. If you have further arguments on this effect I'm willing to listen to them but I will need context and possibly examples of either similar effects or theoretical scenarios. As well as clarification on whether we are discussing the original card or the suggested and accepted alteration.
You're as free to run Urza's Saga without 0 and 1 cost artifacts as you are to run this land in a deck with no shrines.
The difference is that Urza's Saga does something if you don't run any other artifacts and that something can in fact win the game while this card does nothing except have a very expensive self-sacrifice ability. If you think those are somehow similar then there is no point in further discussion you are arguing in bad faith.
What I am saying is that your land has 2 types, a super type, and a subtype, adds mana consistently on the same curve as taplands, and protects the decks wincon from removal. If you cannot understand how that is broken yet not identical to a different card, then bless your heart and have a good day.
Which land with 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype has been not broken so far?
I mean, when your criteria is what card named Urza's Saga isn't broken I can't really argue with you. But thats not really an argument for or against any future card. However, to address your concern. This doesn't add mana consistently on the same curve as taplands. A tapland adds mana the turn after it's played while this adds mana the moment you control a shrine with a color. Earliest turn two the same as a tapland but thats incredibly unlikely, though turn three is possibly but it sill requires a fair amount of luck on the players part.. If you believe the two are similar there is no further argument to be had. As for protecting a wincon. Yes, it does that. Its a powerful ability but it costs you a land, is telegraphed, and doesn't protect from all kinds of removal including some of the most heavily played removal. If you have further arguments on this effect I'm willing to listen to them but I will need context and possibly examples of either similar effects or theoretical scenarios. As well as clarification on whether we are discussing the original card or the suggested and accepted alteration.
You're as free to run Urza's Saga without 0 and 1 cost artifacts as you are to run this land in a deck with no shrines.
The difference is that Urza's Saga does something if you don't run any other artifacts and that something can in fact win the game while this card does nothing except have a very expensive self-sacrifice ability. If you think those are somehow similar then there is no point in further discussion you are arguing in bad faith.
Lmao if you think that Urza's Saga is
A.) Not the most similar comparison to a real card
Or
B.) Worth playing in a deck with no artifacts for it to search for
then your ability to compare cards isn't good enough for you to have a rational part in this conversation.
It's really not hard in a dedicated deck for this land to be adding mana turn 2-3, the fact that it telegraphs the protection doesn't even ding the card's utility, and losing a land for a 1-1 trade hasn't prevented other lands from being busted.
Not to mention that this has 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype, and that each one of them is far more supported than Urza's or Sagas.
Legendary Enchantment Land - Shrine
T: Choose a color of a Shrine you control. Add one mana of that color.
When a Shrine you control becomes the target of a spell or ability, you may sacrifice CARDNAME. If you do, that Shrine gains hexproof until the end of turn.
Caveat: This is probably broken. I'm trying my best to make it not, but it probably is. Maybe not being able to generate mana without any Shrines in play is enough but *shrug*
The five color shrine deck in historic is playable and it would play thie but not in place of a land.
To make it more shrine like change the trigger into an activated ability similar to the white shrine from the coreset.
6,t: Sacrifice ~. Shrines you control gain indestructible and hexproof until end of turn. This ability costs 1 less to activate for each shrine you control
Shrine of Penitent Offering
Legendary Enchantment Land - Shrine
T: Choose a color of a Shrine you control. Add one mana of that color.
6,t: Sacrifice ~. Shrines you control gain indestructible and hexproof until end of turn. This ability costs 1 less to activate for each shrine you control
1,t: add one mana of any color.
If that's still too good you add on "Spend this mana only to cast enchantment spells or activate abilities of enchantment permanents."
Darkshrine Relic 0
Legendary Enchantment - Shrine
Sliverthopter 0
Legendary Artifact Creature - Sliver
0/1
actually it’s not as broken as those because it doesn’t take up your land so you’ll be slower on your opening turns.
Neither of the cards I posted do anything though.
If it's the stronger part. Your cards are significantly cheaper even though they both cost 0 mana. Your cards do almost the same amount but don't cost the land drop.
They also don't add mana or protect permanents for 0 mana.
So what you're saying is that it is only broken in the decks one would play it in?
He’s saying the opportunity cost of being behind on mana if played early in the game is significant compared to the advantages it grants where your 0 cost enchantment version has no such cost.
There is most certainly an opportunity cost involved with playing a card that has no text, and/ or no power/ toughness. Not saying that a land not adding mana turn 1/2 doesn't, but it certainly carries the type line and mana value a lot further towards actually winning.
Yes, if you play your cards in a poor sequence, you will experience poor results.
But hey, when has an enchantment land with deck building restrictions and drawbacks that can disrupt your curve ever burned a designer?
If he is referring to to Urza's Saga, he doesn't seem to get that (a) Saga can always produce mana n T1, (b) you can play a Urza's Saga if you still have one to get the benefits of both and (c) even though Saga dies it can generate multiples cards worth of advantage without having to have other cards than lands in play.
I didn't say that this card is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that lands with multiple types and subtypes are always inherently risky. I am not some dumbass who can't read Urza's Saga and needs someone to pretty much read it to me, and would appreciate not being dismissed as such.
What I am saying is that your land has 2 types, a super type, and a subtype, adds mana consistently on the same curve as taplands, and protects the decks wincon from removal. If you cannot understand how that is broken yet not identical to a different card, then bless your heart and have a good day. It's not like either of us will ever have to care if this card is broken ot not anyways, for the zero times anybody will ever play it.
If you believe every land with an additional types broken you have ignored history and are arguing in bad faith. If you wish to discuss the actual similarities and compare them then that's fine but saying comparing it to a broken card that is can't be compared to at all doesn't further the discussion.
You're better off attempting to argue that the 0 cost shrine is broken and that it's similar enough to the land shrine that it's also probably broken rather than dredge up a broken card with only superficial similarities.
Which land with 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype has been not broken so far?
You're as free to run Urza's Saga without 0 and 1 cost artifacts as you are to run this land in a deck with no shrines.
The difference is that Urza's Saga does something if you don't run any other artifacts and that something can in fact win the game while this card does nothing except have a very expensive self-sacrifice ability. If you think those are somehow similar then there is no point in further discussion you are arguing in bad faith.
Lmao if you think that Urza's Saga is
A.) Not the most similar comparison to a real card
Or
B.) Worth playing in a deck with no artifacts for it to search for
then your ability to compare cards isn't good enough for you to have a rational part in this conversation.
It's really not hard in a dedicated deck for this land to be adding mana turn 2-3, the fact that it telegraphs the protection doesn't even ding the card's utility, and losing a land for a 1-1 trade hasn't prevented other lands from being busted.
Not to mention that this has 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype, and that each one of them is far more supported than Urza's or Sagas.
T: Add C.
T: Add one mana of any color. Spend this mana only to cast a Shrine spell.
I'd also like if the last ability counted shrines somehow. For example:
5,T: Target Shrine gains hexproof until end of turn. This ability costs 1 less for each other Shrine you control.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.