Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
Magic Market Index for Dec 7th, 2018
Magic Market Index for Nov 30th, 2018
  • posted a message on Optional rule to reduce mana screw/flood
    Quote from FTW1987 »

    You should only allow Baseball if you have a certain number of cards in library. Even if you have 3 cards left, you have just stacked your next 2 draws in the order you want. With 6 cards, if you baseball 2 times in a row you stack the rest of your library. Getting to both dig 3 and choose the order of the cards is too powerful for a small library.

    Suggestion: You may only Baseball if your library is at least half its starting size (20 in Limited, 30 in Constructed).

    That not only avoids the situations where Baseball stops you from drawing to death, but also prevents abuse from library stacking. Besides, you don't really need Baseball beyond the first few turns. You just need it in the first few turns to hit your first land drops consistently.

    I assume Burn was brought up because Burn is just more abusive about it. The biggest drawback of Burn is that you can manaflood or lose to manascrew. When you remove that variance, it becomes a combo deck that basically always wins the game on turn 3-4. That invalidates slower decks.

    Maybe there should be a gentleman's agreement not to play Burn in this metagame. The point of the house rule is to make random kitchen table creature decks more consistent, not increase Burn's goldfish rate.

    There's a far bigger problem than just considering what lands to make eligible. You just made Brainstorm, already the best card in Legacy, even more broken. Interactions with Sylvan Library and Ponder are also goofy. Thank goodness Sensei's Divining Top is banned.

    Ineligible lands should start with: Strip Mine, Mishra's Workshop, Tolarian Academy, Bazaar of Baghdad, Library of Alexandria, Gaea's Cradle, Karakas, Dark Depths, Maze of Ith, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Serra's Sanctum, Wasteland. Most others should be OK. Actually even Wasteland might be fair, since the opponent can find new land as easily as you can find new Wastelands, and Wasteland even gets slightly worse when its much harder to get manascrewed.

    I don't think it's worth using Baseball to "topdeck" lands in the late game when your library is thin is worth eventually being able to work off a stacked deck, but I could be wrong. Another alternative is to allow each player just 3 "at-bats" with Baseball per game.

    I agree fully with your assessment of Burn archetype abusing this a little more than other archetypes. Other decks benefit as well, but straight Burn-your-face-with-LavaSpike, Rift Bolt, Lightning Bolt, etc. might get a little too much of a boost.

    Banning Brainstorm would probably destroy cause rioting. Ick. But I like your suggested list, but think Wasteland would be fine to get with Baseball. But again, Legacy wasn't what I really was considering much when writing this rule.
    Posted in: Casual & Multiplayer Formats
  • posted a message on Optional rule to reduce mana screw/flood
    Quote from Xyx »
    1. Isn't this just going to shift the problem around? "Ooh, now I can cut half my lands! Wait... I'm still getting manascrewed? I'm so unlucky!"
    2. Why are fetchlands "ineligible"? They're fair Magic cards. Is it because they're expensive? This rule is basically a soft ban on fetches, since they can now be removed from decks "for free" anyway.

    This rule makes it easier to get your early land drops with Baseball. And if makes it harder to mana flood because you can now include fewer lands in your deck without having such a high probability of being mana-screwed early. It is still possible to get screwed/flooded, but the frequency of either is significantly reduced with this house rule.

    I just think fetchlands are too good, and they power up strategies like delve, landfall, and revolt. They are so good that they are sometimes warranted in mono-colored decks.
    Posted in: Casual & Multiplayer Formats
  • posted a message on Optional rule to reduce mana screw/flood
    Your suggestion to put cards on the bottom, then draw is better. I have altered the rules in the opening post to use it. I suppose if you have fewer than 3 cards in your library, you look at as many as possible before drawing. There is no longer any way to abuse Baseball to avoid losing to library depletion.

    Burn can certainly drop to 15 lands. Even with 15 lands, if the Burn player plays first and uses Baseball on turns #2 and #3, they will have accessed on average 2.92 lands by turn 3, but in doing so they will miss out on an average of 0.83 cards by doing so (if my calculations are correct). But playing a low land count is something all aggressive decks can attempt, not just Burn. Even non-aggressive decks will play a lower land count than they would normally. This isn't necessarily bad, but it is certainly different.

    I agree that the Baseball rule doesn't benefit Tron like it does other Modern decks. But I don't think Tron becomes unplayable. With the Tron deck made weaker, fewer people will use Ghost Quarter, Field of Ruin, and Damping Sphere. So it will balance out.

    Regarding Legacy/Vintage, I wrote previously, "Since I lack experience in such formats, I have no list of ineligible lands to propose. I also think players who play in these tournaments are generally too hardcore to be interested in house rules, anyway." But I'm sure a Vintage/Legacy list of ineligible lands would include lands that produce more than one mana, which would hurt decks using cards like Cloudpost, Ancient Tomb, City of Traitors, Mishra's Workshop, Gaea's Cradle.

    Any house rule will warp an established metagame. With the Baseball rule this is profoundly more true for Legacy/Vintage than Standard or Draft. But some of the fun of house rules is figuring out how to exploit them. If you think Burn is disproportionately powered-up, then play Burn or a deck that beats Burn.

    Also remember that no additional cards are banned. But a few land cards are prohibited from being "found" with Baseball.
    Posted in: Casual & Multiplayer Formats
  • posted a message on Optional rule to reduce mana screw/flood
    These are good questions, which make me double-check the wording of my opening post.

    Q1. Is this option a draw?
    A1. Yes.

    Q2. How does it work with Underworld Dreams?
    A2. You will still take a point of damage with Baseball.

    Q3. What about Chains of Mephistopheles?
    A3. You can successfully use the Baseball option with Chains of Mephistopheles on the battlefield because the Baseball option substitutes for the standard drawing of a card as the draw step begins.

    Q4. What about dredge? Can I look at the top 3, see that there is a land, and then decide to dredge instead of drawing it?
    A4. You can't use Baseball and Dredge at the same time; you need to specify whether you will Draw, Baseball, or Dredge before you touch the top of your library.

    Q5. How do you feel about this invalidating the advantage of Memory Lapse, Hinder, Submerge and other similar cards?
    A5. I feel bad about making cards like Memory Lapse slightly worse. But I don't think most spells that put cards on top of an opponent's library are profoundly worse, because most of the time the opponent would rather re-draw whatever card was put on top of their library than get a land.

    Q6. Can I use this to prevent myself from drawing the last card in my library because it's not a land?
    A6. No, you can't use the Baseball option to protect yourself from library depletion because if you don't reveal an eligible land, you have to exile the card as your draw it. This exile-a-card part of the rule was deliberately intended to prevent a player from immunizing themselves from "Millstone" strategies.

    Q7. Is powering up Grenzo, Dungeon Warden intentional?
    A7. Uh-oh, I didn't know about Grenzo! He would need errata such as, "As long as Grenzo is your commander, you can't use Baseball option." If he were to get out of hand in Legacy, he could be banned.

    Q8. Can I look, see that there is a land, and put it on the bottom of my library?
    A8. Yes, but remember that if you don't reveal a land, you have to exile the card you draw as you draw it.

    Q9. If not, does Obstinate Familiar allow me to do this?
    A9. Anything that would prevent you from drawing a card prevents you from using the Baseball option.

    Q10. Can I Plagiarize this effect?
    A10. Yes, and you will draw a card off Plagiarize regardless of whether your opponent keeps or exiles the card they reveal.

    Q11. Does it get by Possessed Portal?
    A11. No, as with the Obstinate Familiar question, you can't use Baseball if you are prevented from drawing a card.

    Q12. What happens if I have Thought Reflection?
    A12. You will draw an additional card, even if you reveal and draw (and exile) a nonland or ineligible land.

    Q13. Zur's Weirding?
    A13. A player may use Zur's Weirding's effect to force an opponent to discard a land revealed and drawn with Baseball.

    Q14. Uba Mask?
    A14. If the active player reveals an eligible land with Baseball, they exile that land with Uba Mask and may play it this turn. If the active player reveals an spell card or ineligible land with Baseball, they MAY choose to exile that card with Uba Mask and play/cast it this turn.
    Posted in: Casual & Multiplayer Formats
  • posted a message on 5 utility lands that help alleviate mana flood, with illustrations
    Or perhaps the best solution is to just print something simpler, like this:

    World's Edge
    Land (C)
    [T]: Add 1.
    [2],[T], Discard a land card: Draw a card.

    With an activation cost of [2],[T], this card might not be good enough, though. Any thoughts on decreasing the activation cost to [1],[T]?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Optional rule to reduce mana screw/flood
    Once again, I have been thinking about a simple rule alteration to reduce the frequency of mana screw and mana flood. If you are a competitive player or someone who thinks Magic’s mana system is perfect the way it is, then this won’t appeal to you. I think most other people will like it. It’s obvious to me that most players are peeved when they don’t get to participate in the game due to bad luck. Furthermore, if you search the forums for “mana screw”, you will find many other people have similarly made proposals for house rules to remedy mana problems. Although the motivation of these proposals is something I fully agree with, I think most of these proposals are too game-warping and potentially exploitable in constructed formats. Finally, search for footage of the epic game 5 of the final match in Pro Tour Guilds of Ravnica.

    Reducing the prevalence of mana screw reduces variance and luck in the game. I acknowledge that the random mana system gives a novice player a better chance of defeating an expert player, and I also acknowledge that nobody enjoys playing a game that they have no chance of winning. But since different decks have favorable and unfavorable matchups, and since bomb rares exist in limited formats, I dispute the notion that the only way a novice can defeat an expert is via mana screw. Since I have observed both novices and experts become frustrated with mana screw, I think this house rule will be appreciated by most people who try it. I also don’t think it can be exploited in constructed formats, but would like to be shown otherwise.

    This house rule, or any house rule for that matter, isn’t as good a method for addressing mana gripes as printing staple-grade cards that increase mana-quantity consistency. WotC has often printed rare multilands (dual lands, pain lands, fetch lands, shock lands, fast lands, check lands, filter lands, etc.) that have always been Standard staples because they profoundly increase mana-color consistency. But whereas these rare multilands were always staples, the vast majority of cards featuring mana-consistency bolstering mechanics such as cycling, buyback, spellshapers, and retrace have been too weak to play outside of draft. I have created two separate sets of cards that ameliorate mana-quantity problems, but that’s a separate topic. This is a just simple rule change for casual players.

    504. Draw Step

    504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

    504.1. First, the active player chooses one – Draw or Baseball. If an effect would prevent the active player from drawing a card during the draw step as normal, they can’t choose Baseball. If the active player doesn’t specify Baseball, they are assumed to have chosen Draw.

    504.1a. Draw: Draw a card. This is a turn-based action that doesn’t use the stack.

    504.1b. Baseball: Look at the top three cards of your library. Put two of those cards on the bottom of your library in any order, then draw a card and reveal it. If you reveal a nonland card or an ineligible land card, exile it. This is a turn-based action that doesn’t use the stack.

    702.51c. A player can't use a Dredge ability during the Baseball procedure.

    Ineligible land cards: (remember that ineligible cards aren’t banned)

    Draft/Sealed: None.

    Standard: None.

    Commander: None.

    Modern: Blinkmoth Nexus, Cavern of Souls, Eldrazi Temple, Fetchlands (Flooded Strand, Polluted Delta, Bloodstained Mire, Wooded Foothills, Windswept Heath, Marsh Flats, Scalding Tarn, Verdant Catacombs, Arid Mesa, Misty Rainforest), Inkmoth Nexus, Urza’s Mine, Urza’s Power Plant, Urza’s Tower, Valakut the Molten Pinnacle. (Any other suggestions, folks?)

    Legacy/Vintage: Since I lack experience in such formats, I have no list of ineligible lands to propose. I also think players who play in these tournaments are generally too hardcore to be interested in house rules, anyway. Folks who play Old School 93/94 and/or Premodern, however, might feel like creating a list of ineligible cards.

    When you use the Baseball option, you generally double your chances of drawing a land that turn, albeit at the risk of not drawing a card at all. For example, consider a typical 40-card draft deck with 17 lands – you have a 42.5% chance of topdecking a land if you draw a card, but you have an 82.1% chance of getting a land if you choose Baseball. Consider a typical 60-card Standard deck with 24 lands – you have a 40% chance of topdecking a land, but you have a 79.1% chance of getting a land with Baseball. Not getting a land with the Baseball option is painful, but it’s still usually better than choosing to simply Draw because you “dig” deeper into your deck for that land you desperately need.

    Here are a few of my speculations about the implications of the Baseball rule.

    Draft speculations:
    1. Players will want to play fewer lands. The default number of lands will no longer be 16-17, it will be 13.
    2. Because players will play fewer lands, mana flood will occur a little less frequently.
    3. Because you can Baseball to dig deeper into your deck for the lands you need to cast your spells, playing a 3-color deck will be a little less risky.
    4. Because you will want to play fewer lands, you will need more playable cards from your picks. But this shouldn’t be a problem because the Baseball rule makes drafting a 3-color deck less risky. This also means that you won’t as often have to forego a superior pick in favor of an inferior pick, just because the superior pick isn’t in your 2 colors.
    5. Utility lands that are designed to protect against mana problems won’t be picked quite as highly.

    Standard Constructed speculations:
    1. Players will include fewer lands in their decks. The default number of lands will no longer be 24, it will be 20.
    2. Standard legal multilands will be very slightly less desirable because they often enter play tapped, whereas basic lands don’t. Since you can “dig” for whatever color of mana you are missing with the Baseball option, you will be more likely to fix your colors with basic lands. It might no longer be correct to automatically include a full set of Overgrown Tombs and Woodlands Cemeteries in your Golgari deck, for example.
    3. Cards that smooth out your mana and function as “mana-sinks” will be very slightly less desirable, but many of these cards will certainly remain playable. In Standard, popular examples of such cards are Treasure Map, Azor’s Gateway, and Tormenting Voice.
    4. The explore mechanic will be very slightly weaker, because I think it’s usually better to get a land than a +1/+1 counter when a creature explores. But some creatures with explore will remain good enough to include in Standard decks, nevertheless.
    5. A few cards will become a little better due to less land in your deck, such as Vance’s Blasting Cannons, Twilight Prophet, Precognition Field.

    Modern speculations:
    1. Since fetchlands aren’t eligible, there will be a little less shuffling of libraries! I made fetchlands ineligible because they are by far the best multilands, and they also fuel mechanics such as delve, revolt, and landfall.
    2. Urzatron decks won’t benefit from the Baseball rule as much as other Modern decks. And that’s fine and dandy.

    Posted in: Casual & Multiplayer Formats
  • posted a message on A Simple Anti-Flood Land
    The word "if" is usually associated with triggered abilities, and in such cases the word "if" is important for the intervening-if rule. But while this card uses "if", it doesn't use the word "when", "whenever", or "at" (which dictate a triggered ability). Since this card does use the word "if", but not "when", "whenever", or "at", it could cause some confusion as to whether or not this ability uses the stack.

    If you play Uncharted Wilds as land #6 while you already have 3 of them in play, would you immediately sacrifice all 4 of them and draw 4 cards? If the ability is an static, non-triggered ability that doesn't use the stack, then I think the answer is yes. But if you added "when" to the card text, then the answer would be no, and you would sacrifice just one Uncharted Wilds and draw 1 card.

    This card is also better than a basic land in nearly all situations. But I really like the premise of a card that helps with mana flood. I also think this card should be common because when playing draft mana-screw/flood are more frequent.

    I would recommend something like this:

    Uncharted Wilds
    Land (C)
    At the beginning of your end step, if you control six or more lands, sacrifice Uncharted Wilds. If you do, draw a card and lose 1 life for each Uncharted Wilds in your graveyard.
    [T]: Add G.

    I use Magic Set Editor to create nice looking cards, and recommend it since it's free to download.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Ethereal Lands - an interesting upgrade to cycling lands from Onslaught
    I suppose you are right about tracking a dynamic value being a nuisance. But I think that I'll reduce the requirement to just one basic Swamp, because I want them to also be worth consideration in decks containing more than 1 color.

    Obviously I want these cards to definitely be a 4x in mono-colored decks. But I would also like to make these Ethereal lands good enough that people playing 2-color Standard decks would consider including some Ethereal lands, even if doing so means reducing the number of Checklands and Shocklands they play.

    This would add an additional level of sophistication to crafting a mana-base for your deck - it's a trade-off between the robust color-consistency Checklands and Shocklands offer, and the mana-quantity-consistency Ethereal lands offer. Overall, I'm hoping these Ethereal lands won't make Checklands and Shocklands bad, but I would like for players to reconsider whether it's still correct to always play 4x of each Checkland and Shockland in their 2-color Standard deck.

    I don't think these lands would be quite good enough to include in Standard 3+ color decks, but I could be wrong.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Ethereal Lands - an interesting upgrade to cycling lands from Onslaught
    (This is edited to account for some feedback received.)

    Cycling lands from Urza's Saga weren't very good. Cycling lands from Onslaught were slightly better, but still not good enough to see much use outside of limited. The same was true for cycling deserts from Amonkhet - they were mediocre, but useful for limited. I suppose I'll propose another incremental upgrade to cycling lands. My intent is to make these cards good enough that they will certainly be very popular in Standard - about as popular as checklands and shocklands currently are in two-color and three-color decks. In current two-color Standard decks, it's generally considered correct to include a full set of both the relevant checkland and shockland, and the only people who seem to complain about this are those who don't own full playsets of these rare lands. But whereas checklands and shocklands help ameliorate color-screw, cycling lands help ameliorate mana-screw and mana-flood.

    Sample card:
    Ethereal Swamp
    Land - Swamp
    Ethereal Swamp enters the battlefield tapped if you don't control a basic Swamp.
    (T: Add B.)
    Cycling B (B, Discard this card: Draw a card.)
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Legendary Dual Lands... that win the game!
    I have taken you comments into account and modified my opening post accordingly.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Legendary Dual Lands... that win the game!
    This post is related to an old post I started several months ago at https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/790438-dual-lands-that-could-hypothetically-bypass-the

    I was just thinking that adding a little extra rules text to a dual land would allow it to bypass the stipulations of the reserved list and make it "legal" for printing. I think making a dual land legendary and adding the ability "At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control seven or more legendary lands, you win the game" would not only deal with the reserved list restriction, but also make the card more interesting. I suspect the requirement for 7 legendary lands during your upkeep is about right, but if the "win the game" feature of such cards is too good, I could always go up to requiring 10 legendary lands (like Maze's End) to win.

    So would a cycle of such dual lands be too good? I think it would depend on the format.
    - It would be fine in draft - probably about a 7th pick.
    - It would be unnecessary in current Standard, which right now is basically perfect in my opinion; right now we have checklands, shocklands, guildgates, and Evolving Wilds, and currently you can build a great deck with as little as 1 or as many as 3 colors without worrying much about color-screw.
    - It would be overpowered in Modern, because with fetchlands you can find these and get them untapped without having to pay 2 life, as you would with a shockland. If fetchlands didn't exist, however, then these cards would be fine.
    - It would be perfect for Legacy, drastically reducing the financial burden of this format. Unless you are crazy enough to try to exploit the "you win the game" feature of these cards, these cards are technically worse than the original dual lands... but with fetchlands, it won't matter much.
    - It would be great for Commander, but imagine the wrath a player would invoke when everyone else at the table realizes their plans for victory! They would be worth trying with cards such as Splendid Reclamation and The Mending of Dominaria.

    Taking all this into account, I suppose the best way to get such cards into circulation while preventing them from getting into formats in which they don't belong would be to include them in a special set such as Conspiracy or Commander.

    Included is a sample card, which is like Tropical Island:

    Rapa Nui
    Legendary Land - Island Forest
    [T]: Add U or G.
    At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control at least 7 legendary lands, you win the game.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Court of Great Justice
    Adding the following to the comprehensive rules would be necessary if this card existed:

    104.3l: A player loses the game if they fail to completely perform an action that they claim a card in a hidden zone would allow them to perform, of if they search their library for apparently no reason.

    Your criticism has also led me to further reflect on this card's power, and on further reflection, I suppose the prior version of card is a little too good. Ironically, I speculate this card was even BETTER in Standard than Legacy. In Standard, foregoing playing first with a weenie deck is probably worth never having to worry about mana flood, since most games of Standard last more than 6 turns. But in Legacy foregoing playing first is probably not worth it because games are often decided very quickly. And also in Legacy, a player could Wasteland themselves, leaving the Court-dependent player without lands for the rest of the game.

    I have altered the opening post with an edit to the card text. Most importantly, now you can't fetch this card unless you are behind by two lands. I feel certain that the card is now by no means overpowered. But I do acknowledge that the card mechanic warps the resource system, which many people will regard as taboo, irrespective of how powerful the card is. Naturally, with "You Create The Card" I endeavor to create weird, game-warping cards, even though I often end up with duds. If you think the card is still broken, please demonstrate what sort of deck could exploit it.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Court of Great Justice
    Third attempt on making this weird card just right, from both a rules perspective and a power level perspective.

    Court of Great Justice
    Land - Court
    Court of Great Justice enters the battlefield tapped if you control more lands than each opponent.
    T: Add W.
    At the beginning of your end step, if you didn’t play a land this turn, you may name this card. If you do, search your library for this card, reveal it, then shuffle your library and put this card on top of it. If you don’t reveal this card, you lose the game.

    Two rules clarifications for this card:

    1. This card makes use of Magic’s Golden Rule: "101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these (Magic Comprehensive) rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation." So if you reveal this card from your library while searching for it, you haven’t violated the game’s rules because this card’s text supersedes the comprehensive rules, in a wacky, retroactive way. I admit that I'm not entirely sure which rule this card contradicts, but I think that just reading the card should make it clear what I intend this card to do. And since the rules prohibit misrepresenting cards, it should be obvious that you lose the game if you don't find this card when you search for it.

    2. Also note the "Court of Great Justice enters the battlefield tapped if you control more lands than each opponent." This effect checks as Court of Great Justice enters the battlefield. So if both players have an equal number of lands and then a player plays a Court, then the court enters the battlefield tapped.

    My intention in creating this card was to create a card that would help prevent spoiled games due to mana-screw, but to avoid creating a card that's so good at preventing mana-screw that players could exploit it to run an extremely low land count. Prior feedback on my previous two attempts made me think that my prior attempts were first overpowered, then underpowered. I think this time I got it about right. With the current wording, if you rely too much on Courts for your land drops, you will often find yourself falling behind your opponent on mana development.

    Ideally, this is a card that you will want to include 1-2 of in your deck, especially in games where you aren't playing first. This card is obviously better in games in which you don’t play first. This is deliberate and intentional, because the general consensus is that electing to play first is almost always advantageous, and I also wanted to create a card that helps the player without the advantage of playing first. Since these cards are better on the draw, it might even be smart to keep 1-2 of them in your sideboard.

    I would also create Courts for the other colors, which would be exactly the same except for card name and color of mana produced.
    Blue: Court of Grand Larceny
    Black: Court of Premeditated Murder
    Red: Court of Aggravated Assault
    Green: Court of Indecent Exposure

    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Enmity Lands
    One thing I think for certain is that these cards aren't fun at all to play against. Try to think of another ability that lightly punishes opposing colors, without locking them out. But the card design and illustrations are superb.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on 5 utility lands that help alleviate mana flood, with illustrations
    "Necromancers' Academy is definitely broken because it apes Volrath's Stronghold."

    Yes, Necromancer's Acedemy is a stronger card than Volrath's Stronghold. But then again, Volrath's Stronghold only ever saw constructed use in 1998 Rec-Sur (as far as I know). Thus, since Volrath's Stronghold didn't see nearly as much use as other powerful-but-fair utility lands like Treetop Village, Stalking Stones, Mutavault, I could argume that Volrath's Stronghold is actually a somewhat weak card in need of an upgrade.

    But then again, the cards in this cycle all interact with creatures and combat, so to maintain consistency, I suppose Necromancers' Academy should follow suit.

    So how about this:

    Necromancers' Academy
    T: Add 1.
    1B, T, Discard a land card: Up to one target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn, and if it does, gain 1 life. Draw a card.

    But then I would probably have to also upgrade Transmuters' Academy, because an effect that gives a creature -1/-1 is generally more useful than an effect that gives a creature +1/+1. So...

    Transmuters' Academy
    T: Add 1.
    1G, T, Discard a land card: Up to one target creature gets +2/+0 or +0/+2 until end of turn.

    As for Illusionists' Academy, you are correct that this is a white ability, like Pacifism or Off Balance or many other white commons. So I suppose the change to be made is:

    Illusionists' Academy
    T: Add 1.
    1U, T, Discard a land card: Tap target creature. Draw a card.

    With these changes in place, the question returns: Which one is the strongest, and which is weakest? My goal is to make them all as equal as possible.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.