Your card invites players with access to 4 mana to play this card, and activate the ability with the other 2 mana at the end of your opponent's turn (or in response to a kill spell) to throw Griselbrand, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or similarly powerful cards out and win on the very same turn (or perhaps next turn).
It's not just access to 4 mana—it requires four Forests.
The Basic land type is very significant addition to the cost, even with the presence of Dual Lands, Shocklands, and the increasing number of unthought non-basic lands with basic land types, it's not going to be as simple as you're trying to make it out.
Four forests is literally a non-cost. The type of deck that would run this card would have little reason to use lands other than forests and forest duals.
likewise, you seem to think that “going down to square one” by sacrificing lands is a “cost”. While it is one by the strict rules of Mtg, it would never be one in practice. People would only use the ability if they intend to win fairly immediately. It would be a glass cannon combo like the old charbelcher decks. Either the deck wins when it activates or it loses when it activates. That is how this type of glass-cannon combo decks work.
This primes the fun of running additional copies, and gives the whole deck engine (involving the aforementioned) some much needed interactivity.
You don't know what interactivity means or you are deliberately using it wrong.
It requires you to use additional copies, which is interactive.
This isn't what interactive means. Interactive means activity between the two players. Demonic Tutor is not interactive because it doesn't do anything to the opponent. Lightning Bolt is mildly interactive because it gives you many options for how to use it. Lightning Storm is stupidly interactive because it gives you and your opponent an ability to activate and a variable target.
I'm glad you made it clear that you either don't want to use the same vocabulary as everyone else or actually don't know English but are very good at pretending. Now when you use a word I won't assume you are using it correctly but instead mean it to function in the method you are using it rather than the method it is meant to be used.
Using your interpretation of interactive your change still fails but not because it cuts off interactivity but because the base card already wants to be a 4 of so making you want more copies doesn't help. You want as many copies of your combo cards as possible without impeding the flow of the deck. You are right on the "you don't want to actually play the additional copies you draw" but this isn't relevant because you only need 1 copy to win; so drawing copies 2+ are only insulation against removal, regardless of if you have to sacrifice the card to use it.
If you would like to invent a new meaning of interactive so you are you retroactively correct I will gladly tear down that meaning as well.
Your card invites players with access to 4 mana to play this card, and activate the ability with the other 2 mana at the end of your opponent's turn (or in response to a kill spell) to throw Griselbrand, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or similarly powerful cards out and win on the very same turn (or perhaps next turn).
It's not just access to 4 mana—it requires four Forests.
The Basic land type is very significant addition to the cost, even with the presence of Dual Lands, Shocklands, and the increasing number of unthought non-basic lands with basic land types, it's not going to be as simple as you're trying to make it out.
This isn't actually a cost. A deck can have access to 8 dual lands(which can equate to 30+ lands) that are forest and another color, and even more if you want more than 2 colors. So there is essentially no color restriction when building a deck around this card.
If you are confused by the math for lands. Let's say you are playing a UG deck because you want counterspells to protect your combo. You get 4 copies of Tropical Island and 4 copies of Breeding Pool. Your combo only requires 3-4 lands so 8 mana producing lands is plenty. However, a deck still needs about 22-24 lands so we need 16 more lands. Well because all our lands are forests or islands that gives us access to 7 fetch lands. Misty Rainforest, Verdant Catacombs, Windswept Heath, Wooded Foothills, Flooded Strand, Polluted Delta, Scalding Tarn. That is a total of 28 additional lands available to us. Meaning if we wanted we could run 36 lands and still only have forest/islands. The sacrifice a forest isn't a cost so much as a deck building restriction. Meaning it limits what decks can play it not how easily they can play it.
Your card invites players with access to 4 mana to play this card, and activate the ability with the other 2 mana at the end of your opponent's turn (or in response to a kill spell) to throw Griselbrand, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or similarly powerful cards out and win on the very same turn (or perhaps next turn).
It's not just access to 4 mana—it requires four Forests.
The Basic land type is very significant addition to the cost, even with the presence of Dual Lands, Shocklands, and the increasing number of unthought non-basic lands with basic land types, it's not going to be as simple as you're trying to make it out.
Sure, but those forests being gone aren't a problem to you because you've already won the game? All requiring forests does here is make sure you win on turn 3 or 4 every game instead of turn 2 every game. You kind of have to design this one around the creatures that exist in the game.
You want to blame me instead of seeing and blaming the lameness in designs like Emrakul.
This is a perfect example of development being limited unjustly because of the poor decisions and implementations of others.
This should never be a thing.
You're right. Your card is fine. Every card that is a problem with your card is the problem and we should ban every significant card. That is a completely reasonable thing to expect and design for.
Unfortunately with all those cards now banned your card actually sucks. No one wants to sacrifice 3 forests for a Krosan Colossus. To fix this problem forget the ridiculous sacrifice clause and swap it to 2X instead of XX this makes it so sacrificing a single forest is a viable strategy to build for elves or any other creature based deck.
You want to blame me instead of seeing and blaming the lameness in designs like Emrakul.
This is a perfect example of development being limited unjustly because of the poor decisions and implementations of others.
This should never be a thing.
You designed to ramp out powerful creatures and now you are complaining that it ramps out too powerful a creature and that its the creature's fault.
The power level of your card is going to be inherently tied to what it can poop out of your deck. Unfortunately for you, Emrakul exists and it is the metric used to evaluate any ability that poops out creatures without casting them. You don't want that to be the metric? Then design a set or cube with this card in it so that the power level of what it can summon is balanced.
You don't get to say your made-up Magic card balanced because a real Magic card shouldn't exist.
You want to blame me instead of seeing and blaming the lameness in designs like Emrakul.
This is a perfect example of development being limited unjustly because of the poor decisions and implementations of others.
This should never be a thing.
You seem to find it funny that we judge fake cards using the context of cards that actually exist.
You seem to find it funny that we judge the viability of fake card effects using the context of current, actual rules.
You seem to find it funny that the magic community uses terms to discuss cards that it has actually used for years and not the terms or alternate meanings that you have put out.
From all evidence I see, you are the only one laughing at this point.
To be perfectly frank, I am kind of amazed that you are still here at this point. If this sort of argument occurred in any other forums (If you repeatedly put black vise in modern decklists because you want it to be reprinted or if you recommended food chain for aristocrats decks in the commander forum because you feel that card should be errata’d to allow death triggers, for example), I do not think that would stand. Even in custom creation, where things are fast and loose, your inability or unwillingness to keep the actual game of MTG as it currently exists in mind when you design cards (or to explicitly state and argue for intentional departures) boggles my mind.
I'd gut the card and start over
Unstable Regenesis BG
Enchantment BB, Sacrifice any number of Forests: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with a converted mana cost X and put it into the battlefield, where X is equal to the number of Forests sacrificed this way times itself. Sacrifice this creature at the beginning of the next end step. Shuffle the remaining cards into your library.
As has been established, the change in color requirements doesn't really make it harder to activate. It DOES however make it harder to play OTHER colors. And, by having the creature off itself at end of turn, you raise the bar for it to be able to just outright win. As is, you outright NEED another card to take advantage of the body you're trading your board for offensively, or that better be one spicy ETB effect. And, by raising the bar for the ability to be game ending, I believe you'd also be increasing the likelihood of the card being used for "fair" purposes.
Also, I personally LIKE being able to angle-shoot for specific mana costs, so I jammed that back in there. I think a bit of selection is permissible when you already need to prep before it accomplishes anything.
It's possible I'm missing something, but I think with these changes the card is less a combo piece, and more a midrange spice-rack that can occasionally combo out, much like Conspicuous Snoop in Modern
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
Unstable RegenesisBG Enchantment BB, Sacrifice any number of Forests: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with a converted mana cost X and put it into the battlefield, where X is equal to the number of Forests sacrificed this way times itself. Sacrifice this creature at the beginning of the next end step. Shuffle the remaining cards into your library.
That's funny because I'd probably gut this card and start over.
Limelight Instant
Reveal the top 7 cards of your library. You may put a creature card revealed this way into your hand and up to one other card on the top of your library. Put the remaining cards on the bottom of your library in any order. "Light is such the glory of life. Revel in the one who stands in it. Expel the one who is undeserving. And never forget to share the light—or else its glory will fade."
Unstable RegenesisBG Enchantment BB, Sacrifice any number of Forests: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with a converted mana cost X and put it into the battlefield, where X is equal to the number of Forests sacrificed this way times itself. Sacrifice this creature at the beginning of the next end step. Shuffle the remaining cards into your library.
That's funny because I'd probably gut this card and start over.
Limelight Instant
Reveal the top 7 cards of your library. You may put a creature card revealed this way into your hand and up to one other card on the top of your library. Put the remaining cards on the bottom of your library in any order. "Light is such the glory of life. Revel in the one who stands in it. Expel the one who is undeserving. And never forget to share the light—or else it may die."
That's funny, because I'd gut that card and...
Actually, Limelight is probably a reasonable uncommon level instant; just the Incubation half of Incubation // Incongruity balanced as an individual card. Might need to be a sorcery.
Notably, it can just be "Look at the top seven cards" and just reveal the creatures, so you're giving away less information.
If you're putting more that two cards on the bottom they should be random, so the player doesn't feel the need to waste time on ordering cards they most likely are never going to draw too.
Without the 'Exile' clause, I think it's over-the-top as a repeatable effect.
Just play another if you want the effect again.
This primes the fun of running additional copies, and gives the whole deck engine (involving the aforementioned) some much needed interactivity.
Ok, either you don't know what interactivity means or you are deliberately using it wrong. Making it self exile adds 0 interactivity and possibly removes a lot. A card sitting on the battlefield is open to interactivity.
It requires you to use additional copies, which is interactive. You have to source the additional copies as well, which is also interactive.
If it were just a linear effect, that just sits there and can repeat itself, that is losing interactivity; because you don't have to source and play additional copies to get additional effects.
That's... not how most of use use the term "interactivity".
Generally, when discussing how interactive a card is for MTG, we're discussing interactivity in the sense of your opponent interacting with the card. Relying on ETB effects is less interactive. Having hexproof is less interactive. Being able to sacrifice the card without paying a mana cost for an effect is less interactive. Meanwhile, having a tap ability, an ability that triggers during your upkeep, or an attack that trigger when the creature attacks is more interactive as it gives your opponents more opportunities to interact with the card. A card that repeats itself every turn (such as dark confidant) is very interactive because it has to survive a round to do its job and is placed on a fragile body.
Your card invites players with access to 4 mana to play this card, and activate the ability with the other 2 mana at the end of your opponent's turn (or in response to a kill spell) to throw Griselbrand, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or similarly powerful cards out and win on the very same turn (or perhaps next turn). If a couple of split-second cards are the only things that really stop you, your card is not interactive (which is the same problem lots of people have with sensei's divining top).
You are referring to "interactive" in the sense that making a random creature a human instead of an elk creates additional ways that existing cards can support and synergize with the new card... except that you seem to be referring to interactivity within the context of deck design/composition... which literally nobody around here does.
You're wasting your time. This guy never takes any critique, and goes out of his way to misuse words then get you down a rabbit hole arguing about the definition of something only tangentially related to the original post.
This card is an acceptable design in that it actually doesn't have huge wording or rules flaws. But it is not a card that should ever be printed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's not just access to 4 mana—it requires four Forests.
The Basic land type is very significant addition to the cost, even with the presence of Dual Lands, Shocklands, and the increasing number of unthought non-basic lands with basic land types, it's not going to be as simple as you're trying to make it out.
likewise, you seem to think that “going down to square one” by sacrificing lands is a “cost”. While it is one by the strict rules of Mtg, it would never be one in practice. People would only use the ability if they intend to win fairly immediately. It would be a glass cannon combo like the old charbelcher decks. Either the deck wins when it activates or it loses when it activates. That is how this type of glass-cannon combo decks work.
I'm glad you made it clear that you either don't want to use the same vocabulary as everyone else or actually don't know English but are very good at pretending. Now when you use a word I won't assume you are using it correctly but instead mean it to function in the method you are using it rather than the method it is meant to be used.
Using your interpretation of interactive your change still fails but not because it cuts off interactivity but because the base card already wants to be a 4 of so making you want more copies doesn't help. You want as many copies of your combo cards as possible without impeding the flow of the deck. You are right on the "you don't want to actually play the additional copies you draw" but this isn't relevant because you only need 1 copy to win; so drawing copies 2+ are only insulation against removal, regardless of if you have to sacrifice the card to use it.
If you would like to invent a new meaning of interactive so you are you retroactively correct I will gladly tear down that meaning as well.
This isn't actually a cost. A deck can have access to 8 dual lands(which can equate to 30+ lands) that are forest and another color, and even more if you want more than 2 colors. So there is essentially no color restriction when building a deck around this card.
If you are confused by the math for lands. Let's say you are playing a UG deck because you want counterspells to protect your combo. You get 4 copies of Tropical Island and 4 copies of Breeding Pool. Your combo only requires 3-4 lands so 8 mana producing lands is plenty. However, a deck still needs about 22-24 lands so we need 16 more lands. Well because all our lands are forests or islands that gives us access to 7 fetch lands. Misty Rainforest, Verdant Catacombs, Windswept Heath, Wooded Foothills, Flooded Strand, Polluted Delta, Scalding Tarn. That is a total of 28 additional lands available to us. Meaning if we wanted we could run 36 lands and still only have forest/islands. The sacrifice a forest isn't a cost so much as a deck building restriction. Meaning it limits what decks can play it not how easily they can play it.
Sure, but those forests being gone aren't a problem to you because you've already won the game? All requiring forests does here is make sure you win on turn 3 or 4 every game instead of turn 2 every game. You kind of have to design this one around the creatures that exist in the game.
You want to blame me instead of seeing and blaming the lameness in designs like Emrakul.
This is a perfect example of development being limited unjustly because of the poor decisions and implementations of others.
This should never be a thing.
Unfortunately with all those cards now banned your card actually sucks. No one wants to sacrifice 3 forests for a Krosan Colossus. To fix this problem forget the ridiculous sacrifice clause and swap it to 2X instead of XX this makes it so sacrificing a single forest is a viable strategy to build for elves or any other creature based deck.
You designed to ramp out powerful creatures and now you are complaining that it ramps out too powerful a creature and that its the creature's fault.
The power level of your card is going to be inherently tied to what it can poop out of your deck. Unfortunately for you, Emrakul exists and it is the metric used to evaluate any ability that poops out creatures without casting them. You don't want that to be the metric? Then design a set or cube with this card in it so that the power level of what it can summon is balanced.
You don't get to say your made-up Magic card balanced because a real Magic card shouldn't exist.
You seem to find it funny that we judge fake cards using the context of cards that actually exist.
You seem to find it funny that we judge the viability of fake card effects using the context of current, actual rules.
You seem to find it funny that the magic community uses terms to discuss cards that it has actually used for years and not the terms or alternate meanings that you have put out.
From all evidence I see, you are the only one laughing at this point.
To be perfectly frank, I am kind of amazed that you are still here at this point. If this sort of argument occurred in any other forums (If you repeatedly put black vise in modern decklists because you want it to be reprinted or if you recommended food chain for aristocrats decks in the commander forum because you feel that card should be errata’d to allow death triggers, for example), I do not think that would stand. Even in custom creation, where things are fast and loose, your inability or unwillingness to keep the actual game of MTG as it currently exists in mind when you design cards (or to explicitly state and argue for intentional departures) boggles my mind.
Unstable Regenesis BG
Enchantment
BB, Sacrifice any number of Forests: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with a converted mana cost X and put it into the battlefield, where X is equal to the number of Forests sacrificed this way times itself. Sacrifice this creature at the beginning of the next end step. Shuffle the remaining cards into your library.
As has been established, the change in color requirements doesn't really make it harder to activate. It DOES however make it harder to play OTHER colors. And, by having the creature off itself at end of turn, you raise the bar for it to be able to just outright win. As is, you outright NEED another card to take advantage of the body you're trading your board for offensively, or that better be one spicy ETB effect. And, by raising the bar for the ability to be game ending, I believe you'd also be increasing the likelihood of the card being used for "fair" purposes.
Also, I personally LIKE being able to angle-shoot for specific mana costs, so I jammed that back in there. I think a bit of selection is permissible when you already need to prep before it accomplishes anything.
It's possible I'm missing something, but I think with these changes the card is less a combo piece, and more a midrange spice-rack that can occasionally combo out, much like Conspicuous Snoop in Modern
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
That's funny because I'd probably gut this card and start over.
Limelight
Instant
Reveal the top 7 cards of your library. You may put a creature card revealed this way into your hand and up to one other card on the top of your library. Put the remaining cards on the bottom of your library in any order.
"Light is such the glory of life. Revel in the one who stands in it. Expel the one who is undeserving. And never forget to share the light—or else its glory will fade."
That's funny, because I'd gut that card and...
Actually, Limelight is probably a reasonable uncommon level instant; just the Incubation half of Incubation // Incongruity balanced as an individual card. Might need to be a sorcery.
Notably, it can just be "Look at the top seven cards" and just reveal the creatures, so you're giving away less information.
If you're putting more that two cards on the bottom they should be random, so the player doesn't feel the need to waste time on ordering cards they most likely are never going to draw too.
You're wasting your time. This guy never takes any critique, and goes out of his way to misuse words then get you down a rabbit hole arguing about the definition of something only tangentially related to the original post.
This card is an acceptable design in that it actually doesn't have huge wording or rules flaws. But it is not a card that should ever be printed.