I've long made (10 years ago) a green spell that untaps up to three lands for one gree. It's a green dark ritual. It's good, but it's not broken.
Also note that pieces such as this, which are apart of a complex puzzle, see proper balance when your core gaming rules meet fair regulation; and don't allow exploitative means to hotfix the challenge factor of sourcing all the pieces together at once.
if any color can have every effect, there is no reason to have colors anymore. It’s a basic design principle of the game.
A good designer can create successfully within the restrictions of the system they are creating for. A bad one whines about how rules shouldn’t apply to them. We see which category you fall into.
Negative sir. They would still have fantasy principals.
Nowhere does it say that. A bad designer is the same as a bad scientist; one who doesn't fully understand the science.
I've tried to explain the fundamentals of the game on a functionality base. You still don't get it.
You don't understand the science of this game based on its dynamics of physics. You can't unjustly quarter some effects and say you have a perfectly balanced game. You have to shamefully, purposely under-develop certain sides periodically so the others can lead. This should not be a thing. Domain influence of the game based on its most basic dynamics and fundamentals should be balanced across the board for core-essential effects—with the fantasy element changing the scope and perception of how it is done. Shaping that pillar into something unique.
Do you see which category I fall into now?
Of course, we all should know, the difference between poison and medicine is in the dose.
But you, and MTG, are legendarily terrible with overdosing.
This cannot equate to paying mana to draw a card because it doesn't enable you to use accessory mana outlets to abuse the effect.
Let's stop suggesting that it's the same.
I would consider a limiter so the effect only allows a single card to be drawn, as a "up to three lands" style effect.
Note that this effect cannot stack in multiples because you have to select lands that "could be untapped". Once chosen to be skipped for the effect, they cannot be untapped anymore when the second trigger goes to resolve.
I did originally cost this at 2. I'm intrigued the difference of one mana, or even two, given the scale of power one is suggesting.
Certainly at 4 it becomes unplayable? How much less unplayable at 3 that it costs you a turn?
Certainly Howling Mine was a light example. Consider how no one provided a contemporary that does. Certainly we know this is true? There are many that provide something for nothing (or next to nothing). You don't have to tap down. You get the benefit even if you don't tap down. Bazaar of Baghdad
Consider for the cost Balance of Power. Seems balanced right? Not nearly competitive enough.
Once again, one must consider that despite the option of an effect is there, the opportunity to use it may not be.
How many cards will you actually be able to afford to draw from this in those opening turns it hits the battlefield.
What difference does that make of the cost? I'm going to return this to the original cost.
I can't say I'm won by any of the other arguments though. The potential is simply hopeful at best. Not assured as so many other effects are—Dark Confidant.
The fact of doing something for free is where I'm concerned. I did just mention this before. It comes off blatant as a something for nothing that it's rewarding you for something you're already doing. I actually think this is achievable (and can be great) but this application lacks the style for that finish.
I'm pretty content with the version posted. As I was when I questioned the contrastive potential.
Don't call it incredibly efficient, because compared to contemporaries of that band Howling Mine, this doesn't give you something for nothing.
Peak Preparedness1W Enchantment
During your untap step, you may skip untapping up to three lands you control that could be untapped. Then, draw a card if two or more lands are not untapped this way. If an odd number of lands are not untapped this way, you may also put a Clue, Treasure, Food, or 0/1 colorless Thompter artifact creature token with flying onto the battlefield. Remember we have to always be stronger.
Questioning if this would be better as a function that allows you to tap out during your turn and then rewards you for it. Certainly seems less interactive and challenging that way. I know there's the responsibility to provide enough functionality that it's not worthless, and this means being intuitive to the flow of the game to a certain degree if necessary. As it is, I think it certainly makes up for everything that the second effect clause allows one land to be left untapped in order to create a token as an imperative alternative bonus option.
Trying to entirely discredit me with the vagueness of a simple misconception.
None of those points are relevant. Pauper isn't a relevant format.
Gotta love how your arguments always revolve around a bunch of "broken" content you release, yet seemingly, masked as perfectly balanced combo material.
We all love the second-rating, the repetition, and the metaphors; stripped of all gold...
No, I questioned the ability to counterspell the end clause (which you still should not be able to do).
That was the exact subject for several posts.
However, the Sundial was presented first so that I would contest it still, I'm sure 'to make me eat my words again'.
It's not about right or wrong anymore, or helping someone see the light. It's about abusive indulgences.
I'm just going to use the 'until end of turn' clause to move this along. As I mentioned, I was going to word it this way to begin with, but worried it was too incoherent.
Because Epic creates a "delayed triggered ability". Which apparently, also confirmed here, includes "at the end of turn" effects based on an oracle update.
However, it makes no sense to have everything else couped up in in "end the turn" effect, then have "at the end of turn" stayed and far off in left field.
I stand by my initial argument that it should be included with all other "end of turn" effects.
It's cute how you tried to play me by showing the Sundial combo first, and not just showing the counterspell effect outright.
And arranging your deck with content to help put that probability in your favor is also supposed to be apart of it.
Allowing players to circumvent the challenge of the opening draw is just blatantly wrong.
Go to any casino, sit down at the table, and ask them to let you mulligan until you get pocket aces.
What are they going to tell you? And why?
Seriously, just let players put all the cards into their hand at the start of the game. Why bother shuffling to draw at all?
This was already debated.
I've long made (10 years ago) a green spell that untaps up to three lands for one gree. It's a green dark ritual. It's good, but it's not broken.
Also note that pieces such as this, which are apart of a complex puzzle, see proper balance when your core gaming rules meet fair regulation; and don't allow exploitative means to hotfix the challenge factor of sourcing all the pieces together at once.
Negative sir. They would still have fantasy principals.
Nowhere does it say that. A bad designer is the same as a bad scientist; one who doesn't fully understand the science.
I've tried to explain the fundamentals of the game on a functionality base. You still don't get it.
You don't understand the science of this game based on its dynamics of physics. You can't unjustly quarter some effects and say you have a perfectly balanced game. You have to shamefully, purposely under-develop certain sides periodically so the others can lead. This should not be a thing. Domain influence of the game based on its most basic dynamics and fundamentals should be balanced across the board for core-essential effects—with the fantasy element changing the scope and perception of how it is done. Shaping that pillar into something unique.
Do you see which category I fall into now?
Of course, we all should know, the difference between poison and medicine is in the dose.
But you, and MTG, are legendarily terrible with overdosing.
Mindless spam—s**tposting.
I was thinking over the effect and pondered if I could make it even more fun and interactive.
What do you all think?
Can we just acknowledge the nazification of the "color pie"?
Be kind to your imagination. Colors should be able to do things if they can do them creatively and stylishly.
This has always intrigued me, and once I wanted to believe as well, but then I saw the light.
Simply put, this would a very fair and creative way of doing it. Absolute masterpiece. The crowd raves, "Good job king!".
Let's stop suggesting that it's the same.
I would consider a limiter so the effect only allows a single card to be drawn, as a "up to three lands" style effect.
Note that this effect cannot stack in multiples because you have to select lands that "could be untapped". Once chosen to be skipped for the effect, they cannot be untapped anymore when the second trigger goes to resolve.
Certainly at 4 it becomes unplayable? How much less unplayable at 3 that it costs you a turn?
Certainly Howling Mine was a light example. Consider how no one provided a contemporary that does. Certainly we know this is true? There are many that provide something for nothing (or next to nothing). You don't have to tap down. You get the benefit even if you don't tap down. Bazaar of Baghdad
Consider for the cost Balance of Power. Seems balanced right? Not nearly competitive enough.
Once again, one must consider that despite the option of an effect is there, the opportunity to use it may not be.
How many cards will you actually be able to afford to draw from this in those opening turns it hits the battlefield.
What difference does that make of the cost? I'm going to return this to the original cost.
I can't say I'm won by any of the other arguments though. The potential is simply hopeful at best. Not assured as so many other effects are—Dark Confidant.
I'm pretty content with the version posted. As I was when I questioned the contrastive potential.
Don't call it incredibly efficient, because compared to contemporaries of that band Howling Mine, this doesn't give you something for nothing.
Enchantment
During your untap step, you may skip untapping up to three lands you control that could be untapped. Then, draw a card if two or more lands are not untapped this way. If an odd number of lands are not untapped this way, you may also put a Clue, Treasure, Food, or 0/1 colorless Thompter artifact creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Remember we have to always be stronger.
Questioning if this would be better as a function that allows you to tap out during your turn and then rewards you for it. Certainly seems less interactive and challenging that way. I know there's the responsibility to provide enough functionality that it's not worthless, and this means being intuitive to the flow of the game to a certain degree if necessary. As it is, I think it certainly makes up for everything that the second effect clause allows one land to be left untapped in order to create a token as an imperative alternative bonus option.
Trying to entirely discredit me with the vagueness of a simple misconception.
None of those points are relevant. Pauper isn't a relevant format.
Gotta love how your arguments always revolve around a bunch of "broken" content you release, yet seemingly, masked as perfectly balanced combo material.
We all love the second-rating, the repetition, and the metaphors; stripped of all gold...
Well, it certainly is an odd judgement if you think this in a sorcery effect is OP.
That was the exact subject for several posts.
However, the Sundial was presented first so that I would contest it still, I'm sure 'to make me eat my words again'.
It's not about right or wrong anymore, or helping someone see the light. It's about abusive indulgences.
I'm just going to use the 'until end of turn' clause to move this along. As I mentioned, I was going to word it this way to begin with, but worried it was too incoherent.
However, it makes no sense to have everything else couped up in in "end the turn" effect, then have "at the end of turn" stayed and far off in left field.
I stand by my initial argument that it should be included with all other "end of turn" effects.
It's cute how you tried to play me by showing the Sundial combo first, and not just showing the counterspell effect outright.