Evolutionary Leap1G Enchantment 1G, Sacrifice any number of Forests: Exile Evolutionary Leap. Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with a converted mana cost X or less and put it into the battlefield, where X is equal to the number of Forests sacrificed this way times itself. Shuffle the remaining cards into your library. I looked to the past and saw horror. I could see the future and it was terrifying. We all know history is doomed to repeat itself.
So it only fines CMC 1 4 9 and Draco. I honestly like this effect though it has obvious problems. First is that people are bad at math. They won't realize this is restricted to 4 slots. Also its too cheap. There are too many 9CMC creatures that can effectively end the game turn 3. At least with reanimate you have to have more set up in getting the creature into your graveyard.
So it only fines CMC 1 4 9 and Draco. I honestly like this effect though it has obvious problems. First is that people are bad at math. They won't realize this is restricted to 4 slots. Also its too cheap. There are too many 9CMC creatures that can effectively end the game turn 3. At least with reanimate you have to have more set up in getting the creature into your graveyard.
First off, kudos for designing a correctly templated, straight-forward and still unique card effect.
The name does need to change since Evolutionary Leap is already a card. Plus that flavor is kind of wierd: Are the forests evolving into the creature? It's odd.
The previous poster is right that getting a 9 CMC creature on turn 3 is super broken, and at the same time the sacrifice cost is very punishing if they have removal. This is better costed at 3G or 3GG to slow the effect down to the midgame. Alternately, you could have the cost specify "sacrifice any number of UNTAPPED Forests" to balance the effect out.
First off, kudos for designing a correctly templated, straight-forward and still unique card effect.
The name does need to change since Evolutionary Leap is already a card. Plus that flavor is kind of wierd: Are the forests evolving into the creature? It's odd.
Overall, though, I like this is idea.
I would think of it as like, 'the shifting of the land and time'.
The "or less" certainly opens up valuable play options but uts best use is still coming out 9 drops on turn 3. To not be so explosive just being 2X rather than XX solves a lot of problems. There are obviously still some dangerous 6 drops but they don't quite shut down the game in the way those 9 drops do. Also it means 1 forest sac'd can find two drops which is way more useful.
The "or less" certainly opens up valuable play options but uts best use is still coming out 9 drops on turn 3. To not be so explosive just being 2X rather than XX solves a lot of problems. There are obviously still some dangerous 6 drops but they don't quite shut down the game in the way those 9 drops do. Also it means 1 forest sac'd can find two drops which is way more useful.
It is a possible 9 drop on turn three, but it also sets you back to the start of the game (zero lands).
Exploration and Crucible of Worlds become very interesting play options, but now were talking about building a multi-faceted deck strategy.
I personally questioned limiting this to green creatures, and possibly legendary creatures, but I think it closes too much interactivity and fantasy domain. In the 'nature can do anything bid' this would be one of its primary extensions that show how those roots stretch into and envelop all.
The "or less" certainly opens up valuable play options but uts best use is still coming out 9 drops on turn 3. To not be so explosive just being 2X rather than XX solves a lot of problems. There are obviously still some dangerous 6 drops but they don't quite shut down the game in the way those 9 drops do. Also it means 1 forest sac'd can find two drops which is way more useful.
It is a possible 9 drop on turn three, but it also sets you back to the start of the game (zero lands).
Exploration and Crucible of Worlds become very interesting play options, but now were talking about building a multi-faceted deck strategy.
I personally questioned limiting this to green creatures, and possibly legendary creatures, but I think it closes too much interactivity and fantasy domain. In the 'nature can do anything bid' this would be one of its primary extensions that show how those roots stretch into and envelop all.
The "or less" certainly opens up valuable play options but uts best use is still coming out 9 drops on turn 3. To not be so explosive just being 2X rather than XX solves a lot of problems. There are obviously still some dangerous 6 drops but they don't quite shut down the game in the way those 9 drops do. Also it means 1 forest sac'd can find two drops which is way more useful.
It is a possible 9 drop on turn three, but it also sets you back to the start of the game (zero lands).
Exploration and Crucible of Worlds become very interesting play options, but now were talking about building a multi-faceted deck strategy.
I personally questioned limiting this to green creatures, and possibly legendary creatures, but I think it closes too much interactivity and fantasy domain. In the 'nature can do anything bid' this would be one of its primary extensions that show how those roots stretch into and envelop all.
What's it doing that Oath of Druids isn't already capable of?
I don't think it matters what the options are in legacy.
Ok, I'm going to go slow because thus is very important. Comparing a custom designed card to cards that are banned is never good regardless of format but especially so when the format they are banned in is relevant. There are 3 theoritical places that custom cards are designed for(maybe more but that gets complicated). Either a custom set exploring its own themes. A theoritical standard set that the design could fit in. Or an auxiliary product which means its above standard powerlevel and complexity. You have just defended your design by saying "My card is only as good as this card that's banned in Legacy."
If your intent is to make cards that are so obviously broken that their only comparison is cards banned in formats then there is no reason to discuss powerlevel at all. However such an endeavor is foolish. The power of a design is tied to the design. A vanilla 2/1 for 1 is a reasonable csrd, a vanilla 7/7 for 1 isn't a reasonable card.
Please don't look to the most broken cards in the history of magic as justification for what is ok.
What's it doing that Oath of Druids isn't already capable of?
I don't think it matters what the options are in legacy.
Ok, I'm going to go slow because thus is very important. Comparing a custom designed card to cards that are banned is never good regardless of format but especially so when the format they are banned in is relevant.
It does matter because although this does something similar, it wouldn't need to be banned.
It's a much fairer exchange, that leaves a player totally vulnerable and resets them back to turn 1.
Oath of Druids didn't even need to be banned. They only banned it to prevent everyone from playing it.
No fun for them in everyone running green I suppose?
They only banned it to prevent everyone from playing it.
Uh... yeah?
People naturally gravitate to the strongest cards in most competitive formats. If a card or strategies enables a high win rate, everyone will start playing it and the metagame becomes warped around that card... which is results in the ban.
They only banned it to prevent everyone from playing it.
Uh... yeah?
People naturally gravitate to the strongest cards in most competitive formats. If a card or strategies enables a high win rate, everyone will start playing it and the metagame becomes warped around that card... which is results in the ban.
This is how bans generally work.
Generally works isn't the key here.
Bans work (or should work) by preventing content that creates and unfair advantage which doesn't allow anything else to be played with a fighting chance.
Oath of Druids doesn't actually do that, and neither does this.
Bans work (or should work) by preventing content that creates and unfair advantage which doesn't allow anything else to be played with a fighting chance.
Oath of Druids doesn't actually do that, and neither does this.
What makes you think this? What facts do you us to constitute your opinion. If you can share this it would lend your argument any amount of weight.
Wizards doesn’t think they banned it for no reason
In our effort to make sure games last more than two or three turns, we felt we needed to get rid of Oath of Druids in addition to fast mana and combo enabling cards. Oath of Druids effectively ends the game on turn 2 against almost all creature decks, making it essentially impossible to have a healthy environment as long as this card is legal.
So, there is a question which reap hasn't clarified, and that is what is the format this card is designed for? If you have a limited environment in mind, like a custom cube or a set you're just going to be drafting, then this could be balanced by limiting the power level of 4 and 9 cmc in the build.
If you are intentionally trying to design cards with a legacy or vintage power level, state that up front, because people's default metric for evaluation is how cards would interact with Standard environments and work out from there.
Aside to Reap: Do you know the background of the Oath of Druids deck and why it got banned? I ask this genuinely, because it does seem like an innocuous card on the surface but I know from experience that it was a broken deck to play against.
Aside to Reap: Do you know the background of the Oath of Druids deck and why it got banned? I ask this genuinely, because it does seem like an innocuous card on the surface but I know from experience that it was a broken deck to play against.
Specifics are hazy, but I do recall a screencap of the era. It was very powerful, the color green made it comfortable and attractive to play. There was lots of unfavorable perspective towards blue and black players; with counterspells and cheap control being seen as unfair and broken. It was to great extents in the fact that development didn't ensure to secure power on each side evenly. This technicality is what veered a multitude towards playing it. However, there were more than a few that could stop it, and beat it. There were unaccredited strategies as well, that no one even saw, but existed (such as mono-white).
I was considering the entire overworld in this design. I do think it's powerful—but has great grace in comparison to its predecessors.
I think the best way to solve this, and make the design even more fun and challenging is by adding 'Sacrifice Evolutionary Leap' to the costs.
I think the best way to solve this, and make the design even more fun and challenging is by adding 'Sacrifice Evolutionary Leap' to the costs.
This actually kills all value outside of game ending all or nothing gambits. With out the self-sacrifice there was potential as an engine to generate card advantage in a small creature build. By making it a one shot effect the only option is to forego any creatures other than the intended target making it similar to current polymorph decks. A fun and challenging design doesn't have one correct build and no others it is as open ended as possible allowing the player to find how they want to use the card.
user above is right that sacrificing the spell would make it just more all or nothing. Its not the fastest glass cannon, but probably more stable than something like Charbelcher. Slowing it down is better for making it more interactive and interesting to play both with and against. I did like the earlier idea of doubling X instead of squaring it, as that makes 1 land activations meaningful and 3 lands less busted.
Re: Oath of Druids Deck - It was banned because it was a all but creatureless deck that could reasonably on turn 2 (a) put a Cognivore into play with a large number of Instants in the graveyard or (b) put a Morphling into play with enough mana up to protect it. It was considered one of the best decks of all time in the early 2000s before it was banned. The printing of Emrakul and Exotic Orchard meant Legacy decks could give their opponents a creature to trigger their oath and still get an Emrakul without needing the opponent to play creatures. The consistent ability to summon a removal resistant game ender made it warp the format.
Your card's ability to power out a turn 3 Iona is only slightly less power level wise.
I like the idea of squaring a number in card text, and even if this card is pretty unacceptable in most formats I think it could be tinkered into a balanced state. I think a sorcery speed restriction on the activation would make it a lot more fair; as is, this card is miles better than the comparison of Oath of Druids because you can just activate it on the opponent's end step and give your creature all the benefits of having haste. Sac four forests, and annihilator 6 the opponent? Yeah, that's all this card will ever do. At least Oath of Druids has your creature sit on the battlefield like a nerd for a turn.
I'd say, Sorcery speed restriction, or just make this thing a Sorcery instead of an enchantment, and perhaps increase its cmc to four (defense of the heart and Pattern of Rebirth are pretty balanced yet powerful, too-strong-for-standard equivalents)
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. A card that exiles itself to do its effect is the definition of uninteractive. Neither version is ripe for interactivity but one discourages it while the other is open to the possibility. Speaking of the entire deck it's the same. One-shot gambits are relying on lack of interaction to function while an engine as the original card could be thrive on it.
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.
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.
Enchantment
1G, Sacrifice any number of Forests: Exile Evolutionary Leap. Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with a converted mana cost X or less and put it into the battlefield, where X is equal to the number of Forests sacrificed this way times itself. Shuffle the remaining cards into your library.
I looked to the past and saw horror. I could see the future and it was terrifying. We all know history is doomed to repeat itself.
It was supposed to work with the same function.
Sorry I derailed the effect.
The name does need to change since Evolutionary Leap is already a card. Plus that flavor is kind of wierd: Are the forests evolving into the creature? It's odd.
The previous poster is right that getting a 9 CMC creature on turn 3 is super broken, and at the same time the sacrifice cost is very punishing if they have removal. This is better costed at 3G or 3GG to slow the effect down to the midgame. Alternately, you could have the cost specify "sacrifice any number of UNTAPPED Forests" to balance the effect out.
Overall, though, I like this is idea.
I would think of it as like, 'the shifting of the land and time'.
It is a possible 9 drop on turn three, but it also sets you back to the start of the game (zero lands).
Exploration and Crucible of Worlds become very interesting play options, but now were talking about building a multi-faceted deck strategy.
I personally questioned limiting this to green creatures, and possibly legendary creatures, but I think it closes too much interactivity and fantasy domain. In the 'nature can do anything bid' this would be one of its primary extensions that show how those roots stretch into and envelop all.
What's it doing that Oath of Druids isn't already capable of?
I don't think it matters what the options are in legacy.
If your intent is to make cards that are so obviously broken that their only comparison is cards banned in formats then there is no reason to discuss powerlevel at all. However such an endeavor is foolish. The power of a design is tied to the design. A vanilla 2/1 for 1 is a reasonable csrd, a vanilla 7/7 for 1 isn't a reasonable card.
Please don't look to the most broken cards in the history of magic as justification for what is ok.
It does matter because although this does something similar, it wouldn't need to be banned.
It's a much fairer exchange, that leaves a player totally vulnerable and resets them back to turn 1.
Oath of Druids didn't even need to be banned. They only banned it to prevent everyone from playing it.
No fun for them in everyone running green I suppose?
Uh... yeah?
People naturally gravitate to the strongest cards in most competitive formats. If a card or strategies enables a high win rate, everyone will start playing it and the metagame becomes warped around that card... which is results in the ban.
This is how bans generally work.
Generally works isn't the key here.
Bans work (or should work) by preventing content that creates and unfair advantage which doesn't allow anything else to be played with a fighting chance.
Oath of Druids doesn't actually do that, and neither does this.
Wizards doesn’t think they banned it for no reason
If you are intentionally trying to design cards with a legacy or vintage power level, state that up front, because people's default metric for evaluation is how cards would interact with Standard environments and work out from there.
Aside to Reap: Do you know the background of the Oath of Druids deck and why it got banned? I ask this genuinely, because it does seem like an innocuous card on the surface but I know from experience that it was a broken deck to play against.
Specifics are hazy, but I do recall a screencap of the era. It was very powerful, the color green made it comfortable and attractive to play. There was lots of unfavorable perspective towards blue and black players; with counterspells and cheap control being seen as unfair and broken. It was to great extents in the fact that development didn't ensure to secure power on each side evenly. This technicality is what veered a multitude towards playing it. However, there were more than a few that could stop it, and beat it. There were unaccredited strategies as well, that no one even saw, but existed (such as mono-white).
I was considering the entire overworld in this design. I do think it's powerful—but has great grace in comparison to its predecessors.
I think the best way to solve this, and make the design even more fun and challenging is by adding 'Sacrifice Evolutionary Leap' to the costs.
Re: Oath of Druids Deck - It was banned because it was a all but creatureless deck that could reasonably on turn 2 (a) put a Cognivore into play with a large number of Instants in the graveyard or (b) put a Morphling into play with enough mana up to protect it. It was considered one of the best decks of all time in the early 2000s before it was banned. The printing of Emrakul and Exotic Orchard meant Legacy decks could give their opponents a creature to trigger their oath and still get an Emrakul without needing the opponent to play creatures. The consistent ability to summon a removal resistant game ender made it warp the format.
Your card's ability to power out a turn 3 Iona is only slightly less power level wise.
I'd say, Sorcery speed restriction, or just make this thing a Sorcery instead of an enchantment, and perhaps increase its cmc to four (defense of the heart and Pattern of Rebirth are pretty balanced yet powerful, too-strong-for-standard equivalents)
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.
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.