Would this work as intended? It's supposed to replace a land drop if you play it as a land. If you play it as a land, it would not cost mana. It is not a flip card and does not involve flipping. It just looks like one to faciliate ease of use.
Yes, I think it should be worded "if you pay X(6g) when comes into play, flip it" Since just casting it would not give it "flipped" stasis. or "you may play ~ from your hand as a spell for X, if you do it comes into play flipped"
(that would mean no cc any where on the card, just that text about flipping on the forest side)
No, I think it should be the other way "You may play ~ from your hand as if it where a land, if you do flip ~."(this counts as playing a land for the turn)
OR
"If you have not played a land this turn, you may play ~ from your hand as if it where a land, if you do flip ~."(this counts as playing a land for the turn)
That way the side without CC is the flipped side, like it should be.
Also calling the other side a "forest" is not right either. It COULD be a "basic land- forest" but its name should not be forest. (Also if you make it basic both sides need to be basic or your going to get into problems when you build the deck since the judge can throw you out for having more than four of them in your deck... but only if he is looking at the cards the right way).
100.2. In constructed play, each player needs his or her own deck of at least sixty cards, small items to represent any tokens and counters, and some way to clearly track life totals. A constructed deck can have any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.
(see calling it a "forest" causes problems)
510.3. Permanents come into play untapped, unflipped, and face up unless a spell or ability says otherwise.
No, I think it should be the other way "You may play ~ from your hand as if it where a land, if you do flip ~."(this counts as playing a land for the turn)
OR
"If you have not played a land this turn, you may play ~ from your hand as if it where a land, if you do flip ~."(this counts as playing a land for the turn)
(Also if you make it basic both sides need to be basic or your going to get into problems when you build the deck since the judge can throw you out for having more than four of them in your deck... but only if he is looking at the cards the right way)
I don't think DCI cares about cards' flipped sides.
In every zone other than the in-play zone, and also in the in-play zone before the permanent flips, a flip card has only the normal characteristics of the permanent. Once the flip permanent in the in-play zone is flipped, the normal name, text box, type line, power, and toughness of the flip permanent don't apply and the alternative versions of those characteristics apply instead.
Example: Akki Lavarunner is a nonlegendary creature that flips into a legendary creature named Tok-Tok, Volcano Born. An effect that says "search for library for a legendary card" can't find this flip card. An effect that says "legendary creatures get +2/+2" doesn't affect Akki Lavarunner, but it does affect Tok-Tok.
"If you didn't play a land this turn, you may pay instead of paying Guarded Cedars' mana cost. If you do, Guarded Cedars comes into play flipped and you can't play lands this turn."
"If you didn't play a land this turn, you may pay instead of paying Guarded Cedars' mana cost. If you do, Guarded Cedars comes into play flipped and you can't play lands this turn."
But then Solfatara can't prevent it since it doesn't count as playing a land. I want the action to count as actually playing a land.
The second one, sure.
I think ALL reminder text is redundant(execpt for the unhindged ones, since those rules are not in the comprehensive), but that does not mean you should not have it.
I don't think DCI cares about cards' flipped sides.
Yes um.. right. But which side is the flipped side of the above card? Its not written on the card. One side says that you can have 60 of them in a deck (since the oracle text over rides the card text), and the other side does not, but which side is the flipped side?
ah, but student of the elements has a mana cost on just one side. The only side you can play it as first. Gaurdian of the Cedars other side (without mana cost) can be played, since it is a land.
I personally beleive Guardian of the cedars is rediculous, a FREE 5/5 trample on turn 1?
NO No his point was that if you look at the rest of the card, you can see which side is "up."
Some un- cards like Burning Cinder Fury of Crimson Chaos Fire and topsy turvy make it hard. But magic cards do have an orientation (no matter the art or card face if you look at the back of topsy turvy you will see that it was printed upsidedown), and I did lose that argument.
Of course a 5/5 trampler on turn 1 would be ridiculous. That is why the 5/5 trampler is supposed to cost 6G, below the power curve for most green cards. I also figured out that the name of the land does not matter. It is the land type that matters...
Here is the revised version. Is there anything wrong with the templating now?
I don't need it to be playable from outside of the hand, and I'm not sure if you can play a card in hand "flipped" before you pay its mana cost. Perhaps...
"You may play ~ flipped as a land. If you do, don't pay its mana cost."
Just because a card mechanic, like flip, accomplishes a neat trick you like, does not mean it is a good idea to use it for all possible permutations of that trick. You have to look at all implications. In this particular case, a flipped card keeps its color and mana cost, even when flipped. Since lands are not supposed to have colors, or mana costs, it is not a good idea to use flip to have a convertable land/creature.
The split mechanic, on the other hand, might work. You'd just have to add or modify some rules (Example: 505.2. In every zone except the stack and in play, split cards have two sets of characteristics and two converted mana costs. As long as a split card is a spell on the stack, or a permanent in play, only the characteristics of the half that was played exist. The other half's characteristics are treated as though they didn't exist.) Then you just print a split card that is half creature and half land. You can play either half, by normal rules. All you need to do (and I'll let you do it, since it is your card) define which side to use if it is put into play directly.
Split cards are a good idea for this idea. It would be a little had to show which half is in play and which was not played, but it would be ok. Since you normally keep your creatures and lands in different places (it would drive me nuts with one of those people that keep their lands in front and guys in back! but they drive me nuts anyway)
Here have an opinion:
I do think the idea it self is a little unbalanced. There would be no reason NOT to have 4 (or the max #) of these kinda cards in a deck. They are MUCH better than basic lands (I am going to say it) They are strictly better:othan basic lands, and 4 would go in any deck that ran green.
The Vs. card game has this kind of mechanic worked into the game itself (all cards can be played as "lands" and their "instants and sorceries" can be played from the land pile, and still stay in play as lands after being used)
I think that magic would have been better if they had thought of this kinda idea from the get go, but its too late at this point. They would have to do away with basic lands all together, and make only split/flip lands. (not that I think its a bad idea, its almost too good of one.)
In conclusion I would just like to say that never getting mana flooded/screwed again would make magic better, but that its too much a part of the game at this point to change it. (Unless they revamped a bunch of things and got rid of basic lands in constructed play)
I know it breaks a precedent by suggesting this, but it seems to me like this would work better as a split card than a flip card. With no mechanism to flip the card after it's in play, it seems that conceptually you're going for a "play it one of two ways, and it stays that way" kind of thing which is probably better suited for split cards. There would be the "bookkeeping" issue of keeping track which side is live though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
In this particular case, a flipped card keeps its color and mana cost, even when flipped. Since lands are not supposed to have colors, or mana costs, it is not a good idea to use flip to have a convertable land/creature.
I don't think lands with color/mana cost would be that problematic. Note that 508.1c says flipped cards retain those characteristics because no flip cards in print have those characteristics on their flipped sides. Consider:
Mark of Wrath (B/R) Enchantment — Aura
You may play Mark of Wrath flipped.
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature attacks each turn if able.
Whenever enchanted creature deals damage, flip Mark of Wrath.
— Mark of Sloth 2(W/U) Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature doesn't untap during its controller's untap step.
Whenever enchanted creature becomes untapped, unflip Mark of Sloth.
Just like you suggested with split cards, it'd need extra rules for flipped spells (we already have face-down spells, why not?) and unflipping permanents. We have to add rules to create new mechanics, after all.
I don't like split cards for permanents—they'd look ugly on board.
Yep. My opinion, like Soron's, is that the idea should be dropped. But I'm not interested in developing the idea, I'm just stating the problems. If you insist on going thru with it, a flip card is not the right answer.
I don't think lands with color/mana cost would be that problematic.
Rules-wise? No. Gamewise? Definitely. Too mana effects exist that assume land cards will not have those qualities.
Note that 508.1c says flipped cards retain those characteristics because no flip cards in print have those characteristics on their flipped sides.
So? The rules still exist. The reason is irrelevant.
Gamewise? Definitely. Too mana effects exist that assume land cards will not have those qualities.
Like the cards in Scourge?If this proved to be problem, we can just add "~ has no mana cost."
Quote from Condor »
So? The rules still exist. The reason is irrelevant.
We have to change rules or make additional rules to make our custom mechanics. Knowing the reasoning behind those rules is important because some rules just can't be changed.
Just because a card mechanic, like flip, accomplishes a neat trick you like, does not mean it is a good idea to use it for all possible permutations of that trick. You have to look at all implications. In this particular case, a flipped card keeps its color and mana cost, even when flipped. Since lands are not supposed to have colors, or mana costs, it is not a good idea to use flip to have a convertable land/creature.
The split mechanic, on the other hand, might work. You'd just have to add or modify some rules (Example: 505.2. In every zone except the stack and in play, split cards have two sets of characteristics and two converted mana costs. As long as a split card is a spell on the stack, or a permanent in play, only the characteristics of the half that was played exist. The other half's characteristics are treated as though they didn't exist.) Then you just print a split card that is half creature and half land. You can play either half, by normal rules. All you need to do (and I'll let you do it, since it is your card) define which side to use if it is put into play directly.
My original version did not refer to flipping whatsoever. The card simply looked like a flip card for ease of use.
It's these people that started with the flipping.
Also, aren't the dual lands in T1 strictly better than normal basic lands? These lands are nonbasic also...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only human remains.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
- You may play ~ flipped.
Since the flipped side has enough charasteristics to be played, this should work fine.Yes, I think it should be worded "if you pay X(6g) when comes into play, flip it" Since just casting it would not give it "flipped" stasis. or "you may play ~ from your hand as a spell for X, if you do it comes into play flipped"(that would mean no cc any where on the card, just that text about flipping on the forest side)
No, I think it should be the other way "You may play ~ from your hand as if it where a land, if you do flip ~."(this counts as playing a land for the turn)
OR
"If you have not played a land this turn, you may play ~ from your hand as if it where a land, if you do flip ~."(this counts as playing a land for the turn)
That way the side without CC is the flipped side, like it should be.
Also calling the other side a "forest" is not right either. It COULD be a "basic land- forest" but its name should not be forest. (Also if you make it basic both sides need to be basic or your going to get into problems when you build the deck since the judge can throw you out for having more than four of them in your deck... but only if he is looking at the cards the right way).
100.2. In constructed play, each player needs his or her own deck of at least sixty cards, small items to represent any tokens and counters, and some way to clearly track life totals. A constructed deck can have any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.
(see calling it a "forest" causes problems)
510.3. Permanents come into play untapped, unflipped, and face up unless a spell or ability says otherwise.
That's awfully redundant.
Good point.
I don't think DCI cares about cards' flipped sides.
Example: Akki Lavarunner is a nonlegendary creature that flips into a legendary creature named Tok-Tok, Volcano Born. An effect that says "search for library for a legendary card" can't find this flip card. An effect that says "legendary creatures get +2/+2" doesn't affect Akki Lavarunner, but it does affect Tok-Tok.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
But then Solfatara can't prevent it since it doesn't count as playing a land. I want the action to count as actually playing a land.
I think ALL reminder text is redundant(execpt for the unhindged ones, since those rules are not in the comprehensive), but that does not mean you should not have it.
Yes um.. right. But which side is the flipped side of the above card? Its not written on the card. One side says that you can have 60 of them in a deck (since the oracle text over rides the card text), and the other side does not, but which side is the flipped side?
Eh, do you say that to Student of Elements as well?
Next round I am going to beat you with Burning Cinder Fury of Crimson Chaos Fire, so you better watch out!
Anyway I still like my wording for the cards. So ]: P
ah, but student of the elements has a mana cost on just one side. The only side you can play it as first. Gaurdian of the Cedars other side (without mana cost) can be played, since it is a land.
I personally beleive Guardian of the cedars is rediculous, a FREE 5/5 trample on turn 1?
Some un- cards like Burning Cinder Fury of Crimson Chaos Fire and topsy turvy make it hard. But magic cards do have an orientation (no matter the art or card face if you look at the back of topsy turvy you will see that it was printed upsidedown), and I did lose that argument.
Here is the revised version. Is there anything wrong with the templating now?
As I said above, simply saying "You may play ~ flipped." works better.
"You may play ~ flipped as a land. If you do, don't pay its mana cost."
Yes?
The split mechanic, on the other hand, might work. You'd just have to add or modify some rules (Example: 505.2. In every zone except the stack and in play, split cards have two sets of characteristics and two converted mana costs. As long as a split card is a spell on the stack, or a permanent in play, only the characteristics of the half that was played exist. The other half's characteristics are treated as though they didn't exist.) Then you just print a split card that is half creature and half land. You can play either half, by normal rules. All you need to do (and I'll let you do it, since it is your card) define which side to use if it is put into play directly.
Here have an opinion:
I do think the idea it self is a little unbalanced. There would be no reason NOT to have 4 (or the max #) of these kinda cards in a deck. They are MUCH better than basic lands (I am going to say it) They are strictly better:o than basic lands, and 4 would go in any deck that ran green.
The Vs. card game has this kind of mechanic worked into the game itself (all cards can be played as "lands" and their "instants and sorceries" can be played from the land pile, and still stay in play as lands after being used)
I think that magic would have been better if they had thought of this kinda idea from the get go, but its too late at this point. They would have to do away with basic lands all together, and make only split/flip lands. (not that I think its a bad idea, its almost too good of one.)
In conclusion I would just like to say that never getting mana flooded/screwed again would make magic better, but that its too much a part of the game at this point to change it. (Unless they revamped a bunch of things and got rid of basic lands in constructed play)
I don't think lands with color/mana cost would be that problematic. Note that 508.1c says flipped cards retain those characteristics because no flip cards in print have those characteristics on their flipped sides. Consider:
Mark of Wrath
(B/R)
Enchantment — Aura
You may play Mark of Wrath flipped.
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature attacks each turn if able.
Whenever enchanted creature deals damage, flip Mark of Wrath.
—
Mark of Sloth
2(W/U)
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature doesn't untap during its controller's untap step.
Whenever enchanted creature becomes untapped, unflip Mark of Sloth.
Just like you suggested with split cards, it'd need extra rules for flipped spells (we already have face-down spells, why not?) and unflipping permanents. We have to add rules to create new mechanics, after all.
Yep. My opinion, like Soron's, is that the idea should be dropped. But I'm not interested in developing the idea, I'm just stating the problems. If you insist on going thru with it, a flip card is not the right answer.
Rules-wise? No. Gamewise? Definitely. Too mana effects exist that assume land cards will not have those qualities.
So? The rules still exist. The reason is irrelevant.
Like the cards in Scourge?If this proved to be problem, we can just add "~ has no mana cost."
We have to change rules or make additional rules to make our custom mechanics. Knowing the reasoning behind those rules is important because some rules just can't be changed.
Read it again.
My original version did not refer to flipping whatsoever. The card simply looked like a flip card for ease of use.
It's these people that started with the flipping.
Also, aren't the dual lands in T1 strictly better than normal basic lands? These lands are nonbasic also...