While this has been attempted in various flavors a hundred times by men more clever than I (and we have an official example in gemstone cavern), I wanted to try making a slightly less flashy card to mitigate the infamous "first-turn advantage" present in mtg.
Cherished Homestead
Land (R)
Pay 2 life: Put Cherished Homestead from your hand onto the battlefield tapped. Activate this ability only if an opponent controls more lands than you and only as a sorcery.
: add Some seek their birthright in dungeons and battlefields. Others need never leave home.
While it has a fair number of advantages over caverns (such as being able to catch someone up after turn 1 or there being less of an obvious downside for running multiple copies without the legendary supertype), I feel that never adding colored mana and never leading to 2 mana on turn 1 prevents the card from being abused too badly in "unfair" decks that just want to combo off.
Works really well with the Izzet Boilerworks cycle. You can first-turn the bounceland with a Homestead activation and still be able to activate homestead a second time on the following turn because you didn't go up in land count. So in this way it can serve as a pretty strong ramp spell.
Works really well with the Izzet Boilerworks cycle. You can first-turn the bounceland with a Homestead activation and still be able to activate homestead a second time on the following turn because you didn't go up in land count. So in this way it can serve as a pretty strong ramp spell.
I just saw this. Incredible broken. Would love to see this in a modern horizons set. Probably could make it in a standard set, but not too much there. Power level seems right.
Yeah, this is odd. Essentially lets you play an extra land each turn if you have a very specific mana base. Amulet bloom exists and is probably faster so I'm not sure how I feel my own card now.
Who can afford another 2 life? It's intended to replace shocklands?
But as a singular entity, will never see that kind of utility, because you can't secure that kind of consistency with only 4 copies.
I would suggest maybe an adaptation, if you recall, that I used to hotfix a land concept I had, which allows 6 copies per deck instead of 4.
...dude, you are slightly embarrassing yourself when you keep talking about cards without any knowledge of the meta.
1. There’s an entire deck archetype dedicated to running down your own life total in modern.
2. Modern decks that rely on drawing a specific card you have only 4 copies of DO function in modern. Consider amulet of vigor in amulet Titan decks. Those deck lists often only have amulet to allow you to benefit from your bounce-lands the turn they come out and yet the deck can put up results. Your insistence that such decks can’t exist ignores the fact that they exist.
3. One possible problem with this card, as previously indicated, is that this card could effectively function as Amulet of Vigor 5-8 in a amulet bloom deck or similar build, allowing someone to essentially play a new bounce land each turn.
Let's consider getting rid of the crooked mulligan rule, to justify that people are only able to see these dynamics because they are able to bypass the aspect of challenge that should be there without it. And then design more intelligibly accordingly.
Let's consider getting rid of the crooked mulligan rule, to justify that people are only able to see these dynamics because they are able to bypass the aspect of challenge that should be there without it. And then design more intelligibly accordingly.
You are welcome to post cards that make the assumption of changed game rules in threads of your own. Preferably while specifically indicating which game rules you envision being changed.
What you have just done however, is go into someone else’s thread and posted: “If you stop using the actual game rules that I don’t like and agree with how I think the game should work, this card is absolutely terrible”.
I am clearly designing cards to be played with all of the actual rules, including the ones you don’t like. Including the rules that I don’t like. It is assumed on this thread that everyone is using all of the real rules unless they say otherwise.
Does this make sense?
It is not my job to say “I am worried that this card is too powerful because I am using certain rules that ReaptheWhirlwind does not like”.
It is in fact YOUR job to say “I think that my card is balanced in part because I feel that the current mulligan rules should be changed to greatly reduce the odds of starting with a specific card in your hand” when you make a card under those assumptions as you are the one deviating from the “default” assumptions.
The rules I am using are the default. The fact that you assume that everyone is using your value calls on the rules in their own card designs and games is... wrong. Like, most people play by the actual rules.
As we are using different rules assumptions, your commentary gives me no useful information to inform my designs. Replying to this thread is cheaper than Therapy but the catharsis of posting these responses seem to be the only redeeming value your posts have.
Let's consider getting rid of the crooked mulligan rule, to justify that people are only able to see these dynamics because they are able to bypass the aspect of challenge that should be there without it. And then design more intelligibly accordingly.
Seriously dude, you need to learn at least something about this game. Amulet was powerful enough in 2016 to get Summer Bloom banned. The London Mulligan didn't come out until 2019. The idea that the London Mulligan is the only reason a 4-of is enough to power an entire deck is inane and makes you look exceptionally out of touch with what Magic actually is. Plenty of decks functioned off the back of a specific card and they functioned perfectly well when only having access to 4 copies of it. Birthing Pod was another and that one was so powerful that it warranted blasting away the entire deck. Imagine how out of touch you have to be to not think that a card can be powerful enough on its own with only 4 copies and then wanting to add the ability to add more? And, again, Pod functioned perfectly well before the new Mulligan.
What mulligan would you propose that prevents these decks from working while also not ******* up the rest of the game? Going back to the "all land or no land" mulligan?
No, it is significant that player's can infinitely shuffle to a perfect hand.
The reason it was "so powerful" is because it has huge impact for 'fetch lands', which is a problem with the design itself.
This one, specific design, which has no application to myriads of other designs, which will only be broken because of this rule.
And furthermore, doesn't invalidate the ingenuity of design to naturally, wholesomely stretch these rules to extend a card's utility.
Being wrong but claiming you're right without proof when the opposite side has given examples doesn't help you.
No one mentioned fetchlands until now. Fetchlands aren't even in the deck being discussed.
Did you confuse design with rule here? Your nonsense is becoming harder to parse. So as per typical debate rules I'll ask you to clarify your point or back down. Your choice.
Ahh, absolute nonsense disguised as something via buzzwords. I'm sorry to inform you that buzzwords don't actually work on anyone informed.
Shocklands also, I should have included that separately, but typically they are run side-by-side.
It's not being wrong. The utility of Amulet of Vigor isn't needed in every game. It only needs to boost a competitive player through some 40% threshold to give that player the competitive edge. That's exactly what it does running 4 copies. However, other cards are more reliant on consistency, thus validating the entire I've made.
Why don't you try showing me another example of a card, outside of the power nine, where only 4 copies enables this, whose dynamics doesn't also fall into the unreliant category I've explained.
Why don't you try showing me another example of a card, outside of the power nine, where only 4 copies enables this, whose dynamics doesn't also fall into the unreliant category I've explained.
You haven't actually proven any point (and I use that term loosely in your case), so its not our job to provide evidence to contradict the opinion you've presented since you've not given any substantive evidence to support it.
Why don't you try showing me another example of a card, outside of the power nine, where only 4 copies enables this, whose dynamics doesn't also fall into the unreliant category I've explained.
You haven't actually proven any point (and I use that term loosely in your case), so its not our job to provide evidence to contradict the opinion you've presented since you've not given any substantive evidence to support it.
That's not true. You all were the one with the initial argument, and in certain litigation there is also the responsibility to prove something is false.
I would love to see another example that doesn't fall into the same category.
I can't believe I get bashed on like this when I'm only trying to help you break conventions that are so unintelligible, bland, and uncreative.
I don't think I even understand the argument here. That no magic cards are worth playing because you won't always draw them?
If the argument is about combo pieces in particular, well, it's not the responsibility of the combo piece to make itself easier to find. You build the rest of your deck around making that happen.
As evidence, I used to play Splinter Twin in Modern. That deck consistently won on turn 4 despite having to find both a copy of Twin (out of 4) and a target for it (out of 7ish). It did this by relying on other cards like cantrips to find its pieces. Despite the fact that it relied heavily on the combo and had very little in the way of backup plans, the deck was so dominant that the combo had to be banned to allow other decks their time in the spotlight.
The argument is that there are cards which will significantly rely on consistency for them to be so powerful that they (or other cards) get banned because of it.
And that this is better adapted with more creative designs that flex accessibility so this doesn't have to happen.
With 4 copies of a card, you will see it once every 3 or so games. It will never offer the utility for your arguments to be valid, but will have to be so over-the-top that they only need to boost already powerful utility through 40% of the games to provide the competitive edge that's being claimed.
With 4 copies of a card, you will see it once every 3 or so games. It will never offer the utility for your arguments to be valid, but will have to be so over-the-top that they only need to boost already powerful utility through 40% of the games to provide the competitive edge that's being claimed.
For what it's worth that math is incorrect. With 4 copies of a card in a 60 card deck you are roughly 50% to see a copy in your first 10 cards. In 15 cards it's about 70%. That's without any sort of mulligan at all. And that's without any sort of consistency boosting cards such as Opt, Divination, or temple of epiphany.
So for a card like this where it's acting as copies 5-8 of amulet for allowing a deck to cheat on mana with Izzet Boilerworks and it's ilk I can see why Rosy is worried about it.
What's unfortunate is that some of the coolest most flexible designs are the ones that have been banned in these formats. Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Green Sun's Zenith as examples in modern of being banned as key 4 ofs in their decks where nothing else really provided their effect and the deck was built around them.
With 4 copies of a card, you will see it once every 3 or so games.
This is such a perfect quote. It is a crystallization of just how unreasonably wrong you are. I can even see how you drew such an unbelievably wrong notion. While still wrong, once every three opening hands a four-of will appear in your opening hand.
The misassumption that if it isn't in your opening hand then it isn't having an impact on the game shows the massive depth of your lack of understanding.
Look, math is hard. Its fine to not get it. But when you don't get it don't march around like you do. Its harmful for the ill-informed who will see someone proclaiming with confidence incorrect math. They will assume this confidence comes from understanding not foolishness.
Don't dress up your opinion in falsehoods or deceptions simply state at face value. "You don't understand how this game works but you like the ascetic so you want to drape it over your own creation which you have no intention of changing via criticism but you want to show off because you weren't having fun self pleasuring in private."
Guys okay so the mentioned thing was Amulet of Vigor decks. I just want to go on record and say that is the most powerful deck to ever exist in magic besides Flash Hulk. I was one of the two people that created and tested the deck when extended was a thing. The amount of turn 1 wins it could make before Summer Bloom was banned is so unhealthy. My point about this is, Reap you know I have no issues with you, but you are just flat out wrong on the concepts you are saying here. Amulet of Bloom had to be banned because of a specific 4 card combo. That is not even including an actual win condition. You need any land, bounce land, Summer Bloom, Amulet of Vigor, SSG or Chancellor of the Tangle. to get the turn 1 win. Before London Mulligans the deck could still do this around 30% of the time. That's a lot more than 40% for a single card. So that is also out.
And do we need to mention the emergency ban on Flash because of Flash Hulk? If it rarely happened like you state then there would have been no reason to emergency ban the thing. A deck doesn't become the only tier 0 deck ever because it's inconsistent. I've seen matches where it goes I win the coin flip. You go first. Stop on your upkeep. Game 2 the player says I'll be on the draw. Stop on your upkeep. Game 3 I'll take the draw..... Stop on your upkeep. (To those reading this and don't understand.... It's better that way. Trust me. This brief moment in magic history is the worst magic ever was.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cherished Homestead
Land (R)
Pay 2 life: Put Cherished Homestead from your hand onto the battlefield tapped. Activate this ability only if an opponent controls more lands than you and only as a sorcery.
: add
Some seek their birthright in dungeons and battlefields. Others need never leave home.
While it has a fair number of advantages over caverns (such as being able to catch someone up after turn 1 or there being less of an obvious downside for running multiple copies without the legendary supertype), I feel that never adding colored mana and never leading to 2 mana on turn 1 prevents the card from being abused too badly in "unfair" decks that just want to combo off.
Is this an inaccurate assessment?
But as a singular entity, will never see that kind of utility, because you can't secure that kind of consistency with only 4 copies.
I would suggest maybe an adaptation, if you recall, that I used to hotfix a land concept I had, which allows 6 copies per deck instead of 4.
...dude, you are slightly embarrassing yourself when you keep talking about cards without any knowledge of the meta.
1. There’s an entire deck archetype dedicated to running down your own life total in modern.
2. Modern decks that rely on drawing a specific card you have only 4 copies of DO function in modern. Consider amulet of vigor in amulet Titan decks. Those deck lists often only have amulet to allow you to benefit from your bounce-lands the turn they come out and yet the deck can put up results. Your insistence that such decks can’t exist ignores the fact that they exist.
3. One possible problem with this card, as previously indicated, is that this card could effectively function as Amulet of Vigor 5-8 in a amulet bloom deck or similar build, allowing someone to essentially play a new bounce land each turn.
You are welcome to post cards that make the assumption of changed game rules in threads of your own. Preferably while specifically indicating which game rules you envision being changed.
What you have just done however, is go into someone else’s thread and posted: “If you stop using the actual game rules that I don’t like and agree with how I think the game should work, this card is absolutely terrible”.
I am clearly designing cards to be played with all of the actual rules, including the ones you don’t like. Including the rules that I don’t like. It is assumed on this thread that everyone is using all of the real rules unless they say otherwise.
Does this make sense?
It is not my job to say “I am worried that this card is too powerful because I am using certain rules that ReaptheWhirlwind does not like”.
It is in fact YOUR job to say “I think that my card is balanced in part because I feel that the current mulligan rules should be changed to greatly reduce the odds of starting with a specific card in your hand” when you make a card under those assumptions as you are the one deviating from the “default” assumptions.
The rules I am using are the default. The fact that you assume that everyone is using your value calls on the rules in their own card designs and games is... wrong. Like, most people play by the actual rules.
As we are using different rules assumptions, your commentary gives me no useful information to inform my designs. Replying to this thread is cheaper than Therapy but the catharsis of posting these responses seem to be the only redeeming value your posts have.
What mulligan would you propose that prevents these decks from working while also not ******* up the rest of the game? Going back to the "all land or no land" mulligan?
The reason it was "so powerful" is because it has huge impact for 'fetch lands', which is a problem with the design itself.
This one, specific design, which has no application to myriads of other designs, which will only be broken because of this rule.
And furthermore, doesn't invalidate the ingenuity of design to naturally, wholesomely stretch these rules to extend a card's utility.
No one mentioned fetchlands until now. Fetchlands aren't even in the deck being discussed.
Did you confuse design with rule here? Your nonsense is becoming harder to parse. So as per typical debate rules I'll ask you to clarify your point or back down. Your choice.
Ahh, absolute nonsense disguised as something via buzzwords. I'm sorry to inform you that buzzwords don't actually work on anyone informed.
It's not being wrong. The utility of Amulet of Vigor isn't needed in every game. It only needs to boost a competitive player through some 40% threshold to give that player the competitive edge. That's exactly what it does running 4 copies. However, other cards are more reliant on consistency, thus validating the entire I've made.
Why don't you try showing me another example of a card, outside of the power nine, where only 4 copies enables this, whose dynamics doesn't also fall into the unreliant category I've explained.
You haven't actually proven any point (and I use that term loosely in your case), so its not our job to provide evidence to contradict the opinion you've presented since you've not given any substantive evidence to support it.
That's not true. You all were the one with the initial argument, and in certain litigation there is also the responsibility to prove something is false.
I would love to see another example that doesn't fall into the same category.
I can't believe I get bashed on like this when I'm only trying to help you break conventions that are so unintelligible, bland, and uncreative.
If the argument is about combo pieces in particular, well, it's not the responsibility of the combo piece to make itself easier to find. You build the rest of your deck around making that happen.
As evidence, I used to play Splinter Twin in Modern. That deck consistently won on turn 4 despite having to find both a copy of Twin (out of 4) and a target for it (out of 7ish). It did this by relying on other cards like cantrips to find its pieces. Despite the fact that it relied heavily on the combo and had very little in the way of backup plans, the deck was so dominant that the combo had to be banned to allow other decks their time in the spotlight.
And that this is better adapted with more creative designs that flex accessibility so this doesn't have to happen.
With 4 copies of a card, you will see it once every 3 or so games. It will never offer the utility for your arguments to be valid, but will have to be so over-the-top that they only need to boost already powerful utility through 40% of the games to provide the competitive edge that's being claimed.
For what it's worth that math is incorrect. With 4 copies of a card in a 60 card deck you are roughly 50% to see a copy in your first 10 cards. In 15 cards it's about 70%. That's without any sort of mulligan at all. And that's without any sort of consistency boosting cards such as Opt, Divination, or temple of epiphany.
So for a card like this where it's acting as copies 5-8 of amulet for allowing a deck to cheat on mana with Izzet Boilerworks and it's ilk I can see why Rosy is worried about it.
What's unfortunate is that some of the coolest most flexible designs are the ones that have been banned in these formats. Birthing Pod, Splinter Twin, and Green Sun's Zenith as examples in modern of being banned as key 4 ofs in their decks where nothing else really provided their effect and the deck was built around them.
The misassumption that if it isn't in your opening hand then it isn't having an impact on the game shows the massive depth of your lack of understanding.
Look, math is hard. Its fine to not get it. But when you don't get it don't march around like you do. Its harmful for the ill-informed who will see someone proclaiming with confidence incorrect math. They will assume this confidence comes from understanding not foolishness.
Don't dress up your opinion in falsehoods or deceptions simply state at face value. "You don't understand how this game works but you like the ascetic so you want to drape it over your own creation which you have no intention of changing via criticism but you want to show off because you weren't having fun self pleasuring in private."
And do we need to mention the emergency ban on Flash because of Flash Hulk? If it rarely happened like you state then there would have been no reason to emergency ban the thing. A deck doesn't become the only tier 0 deck ever because it's inconsistent. I've seen matches where it goes I win the coin flip. You go first. Stop on your upkeep. Game 2 the player says I'll be on the draw. Stop on your upkeep. Game 3 I'll take the draw..... Stop on your upkeep. (To those reading this and don't understand.... It's better that way. Trust me. This brief moment in magic history is the worst magic ever was.)