MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Dual Lands Challenge *Circuit Challenge* [Challenge Over, Congrats @FaithsGuide]
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
besides, wastes are already a basic land, having the wastes type is not that big a deal and would actually allow for more things to be done, much more flexible design
It's finally happening, people. Before I get into the nuts and bolts, I do want to congratulate everyone who participated for giving me so many fantastic cards - there are an absurd number of honorable mentions, and that's not even including all the other great concepts that were submitted. I couldn't give everyone an honorable mention, after all. Point being, if any of my comments come off as negative, I'm probably just focusing on the flaws so you can get better, not that I hate your card and especially not that I think you're a bad designer. This is especially true for the cards that didn't top-3 or get an honorable mention.
Heuristics
Due to the large amount of entries (for my contests, anyway), I used three heuristics to help narrow down the field. If your card failed a heuristic, it was automatically disqualified from placing. Less because your idea is bad and more because I need ways to narrow down the field.
Heuristic 1: Cards shouldn't be strictly better than a basic land. (This means that there should be a situation where you would prefer a basic land to this, and that you didn't just come up with the situation to prove me wrong.)
Heuristic 2: Cards should look realistic and professional. (This means that cards should be worded correctly, or at least get pretty close. Also that ample empty space at the bottom should be filled with flavor text, and that there should be art, and some other, rarer stuff.)
Now I'll go through the actual cards.
Didn't Place (in no particular order)
@Vert: Friendly lands
Fails Heuristic 2 - since your lands have the basic land subtypes (Forest/Plains/etc) they should have inherent abilities that tap for those colors as reminder text. (See Temple Garden, for instance.) Also, the colors in your cycle are unbalanced.
@nardolphin: Misty Mountains
Fails Heuristic 2 due to the fact that the inherent ability isn't italicized and that you have no flavor text. Also, why does it tap for colorless if it taps for colored mana?
@Lastjustice: Make-your-own lands
Fails Heuristic 1. I like your idea a lot though; if you took off the clause where it can enter untapped it probably would have gotten an HM.
@NickSilsord: Ancient lands
Fails Heuristic 1 for the first land. Also a bit disconnected.
@stormbreath: Winter Glade
Fails Heuristic 1; desperately needs some sort of downside.
@TenebrisNemo: Shrines
It might look a bit odd that this didn't place, since it passes both of the heuristics with high marks. Indeed this is a clean and professional design. However, I felt that sight plays the same as scry in nearly every case, making the shrines almost the same as the temples. (Temple of Triumph et al.) Even if you have many old cards in your set that affect the top or bottom of your library, it still seems a bit narrow, especially for a whole keyword. So that's why this didn't place.
@shadow123: Energy lands
Like the previous entry, this is clean. I'm worried about the effect though. Due to the fact that it enters tapped and doesn't grant you energy when it enters, it's underpowered for a deck that doesn't care about energy. For a deck that does care, it might be overpowered, as it is essentially a tapped Command Tower. Even then it's not really overpowered. So - though I might be off in my assessment of power - that's why.
@Mantis17: Elven Grove
Fails Heuristic 1 atrociously - this land is ridiculously broken. See Sleep for how much this effect costs.
@RohanDragoon: Indestructible lands
I think you have some room to bump up the power - why not give the lands straight indestructible? Darksteel Citadel was printed in a core set, and that's an artifact land. Even in a environment with frequent land destruction, I don't think it's too much.
@KorandAngels: Webfolk Hatchery
Fails Heuristic 1. With a proper drawback this could be good.
@BiasedDice: Platinum lands
Fails Heuristic 2 as there is no art and there is room for flavor text.
@murkletins: Rap, of the Unzealous Scallion
While this is a neat idea, I had to read it several times to understand what it meant, and there isn't even reminder text for revel on the card. If this is too good a land, then people will play it in formats such as Modern, Pioneer, and good old kitchen table Magic for years, way after this set was released, and they will have to look up revel every time. I didn't deem the complexity worth it for the spice of effect.
@Tommyneko: Lands of late-game spice
Fails Heuristic 2. The proper template for Ezagutza (as an example) is more like:
Ezagutza, Land of Knowledge
Legendary Land
Play this land only if you control three or more lands.
T: Add WU.
W W/P, T: Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you this turn.
U U/P, T: Scry 3, then draw two cards.
I really like the concept, though, and with some fleshing out and rewording this could be great. I particularly think that using colored and Phyrexian mana together is a cool way to allow the Phyrexian feel while not breaking the color pie.
@sanjaya666: Castles
Looking at printed cards such as Sulfur Falls and Desolate Lighthouse, this exceeds the power level of both of those. And those cards saw a fair amount of play. So I think these are overpowered.
@RayearthIX: Lands that go bump in the night
As you suspected, Burg Frankenstein's ability desperately needs a mana cost.
@theran_baggins: Constructed Fort
While this is a fine idea in the abstract, Unclaimed Territory does this same effect, but it does it more elegantly. It feels weird that this makes mana and reduces it as well. However, I think you managed to balance this, so props.
@Ralyx: Planets
I took a look at some of your set's cards, and even using those as perspective, these are too good for celestial-scale Magic. I would also suggest using the wording on Irencrag Feat for large amounts of mana.
@Xero0: Plastic lands
These are not as clean as they could be.
Plastic Plains
Land
Plastic Plains enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add C or W.
HM. @Tommia: Loser duals - 1/4 Circuit Points
This is a great cycle. In a format such as modern with fetch lands and shock lands, it won't be hard to enable it, but as your first land play, it's fine (unless you have Street Wraith or something). I especially appreciate that you promoified five of the lands on mtg.design. Unfortunately, since you forgot the period after T: Add {color} or {color}, I couldn't give you a top-3 position. But it was a very strong submission generally.
HM. @JackDraco: Opponent's choice lands - 1/4 Circuit Points
I think that giving your opponent an advantage out of your dual lands is a clever thing to do. I do worry about
HM. @Norzael: Commander lands - 1/4 Circuit Points
This is a really great way to provide mana acceleration in commander without getting out of hand early on. While I would have used "if you control your commander" text to get the lieutenant ability word, it's not necessary. I would have preferred a centering of text or perhaps flavor text, and not having that sunk this ship - but it was a great ship. Don't let the fact that you didn't get in the top 3 sink your impressions of the cardship...wow did that metaphor fall apart fast.
HM. @fiskerton: Biolaboratory - 1/4 Circuit Points
I think Biolaboratory is a neat way to ramp while also creating a unique deck building constraint. My inclination is that this will feel broken in decks designed to abuse it but be otherwise fine, like Steel Leaf Champion. Maybe it’s overpowered across the board; I would have to playtest. But what I would appreciate is reminder text for generic mana. (Generic mana can be paid with any color of mana, such as {1}.) Many new players won’t know what that is, and you have space.
HM. @bnew07: Heartland Brook - 1/4 Circuit Points
I’m truly very sorry that this wasn’t in the top 3. The concept was absolutely top 3 material, sort of a cross between pain lands (Shivan Reef et al) and fetch lands (Flooded Strand et al). However, there’s a major flaw - the plainscycling costs white mana, stopping people from fetching Plains when they have none, which is when they most want to use it. If you gave it a different plainscycling, it would be much cooler. I made a land inspired by yours with some tweaks.
https://mtg.design/i/page87
HM. @Ranshi922: Newid, Mutable Vista - 1/4 Circuit Points
Newid is a spicy way to allow two-color decks to have good fixing while disabling five-color soup. However, there’s a strange case I want to point out. Say I control Newid naming green and blue. If I tap an Island and a Swamp, I can generate the two blue mana I need to cast Counterspell. However, tapping an Island and a Forest, I can’t, since Newid’s ability won’t apply to lands unless they produce a different color. If you clean this up, then this land will be even spicier. I also appreciate how you used the legend rule to decrease “what if I had two” confusion.
HM. @sorinjace: Brumal Arroyo - 1/4 Circuit Points
I’m going to level with you: I had to Google the meanings of both “brumal” and “arroyo.” (Brumal means wintry and an arroyo is a type of creek.) Therefore, I would change the name to something more intelligible. Also, Snow is capitalized in the text box. However, those are both super minor issues, and overall I appreciate the feel you are going for. The only snow duals that exist are the Frost Marsh cycle, and those are basic tap lands, so a cycle like this will take those decks to the next level.
HM. @Arceus8523: Polluted lands - 1/4 Circuit Points
The polluted lands are a casualty of the system - this is a clear fourth place in my mind, and it’s unfortunate that I could only do a top 3. I thought this was an elegant way to do the pain lands (Shivan Reef et al) while giving the player more control and allowing you to diminish the presence of the pain if you wish to take a turn off. Smog in general seems like a fantabulous set mechanic generally.
The Top Three
3. @Shmoohawk: Desert Wetlands - 3/4 Circuit Points
This is a great example of what’s known as lenticular design. A lenticular design is a card that is easy to understand but has gameplay ramifications that are much more complex. Here, on the surface, this is a dual land that requires you to give away information and have more than one card of a color in your hand to work. However, this becomes spicier with multicolor cards and in three-color decks. You could have added a T: Add C ability, but I don’t think it’s required here. Clever card.
2. @Tomigon: Verdant Wetland - 1/2 Circuit Points
This is a very elegant way of making a Simic dual land that can only tap for colorless on the early turns but is fully functional on turns 3+ (unless you have other quest cards). Quest is a great idea for a mechanic that would probably lead to good gameplay. I think the elegance here is top-notch, and you have earned your position.
1. @FaithsGuide: Raid lands - 1 Circuit Point
Both elegant and creative, the raid lands emerged victorious from the Dual Lands challenge. I was having an internal debate as to whether or not this should be expanded to all colors - I think it should, as raid has been in every color but green and it works in green - but, especially if this cycle would be printed in Ixalan block, it’s fine. The cards are both professional and interesting, and I’m proud to award you a full circuit point. They just feel like Magic cards.
I disagree with this notion. In case of the lands I made your assessment is a gross oversimplication of the mechanic. You can go well it makes potentially 3 different colors...but it only makes a single one and comes into play untapped. If you need either other color you will have to wait, forcing you really have think about your sequencing. Early on choosing to not take another color can cost you later. There's nothing to choose with a basic land, you put it into play, and makes mana. Either it's the right color or it isn't. You can't accidentally put yourself off a color as there's no misplays to make. I'd imagine there would be games won and lost purely off the choices made off these lands if they existed. Either they'd slow them by a turn or color screw themselves another game. This layer of strategy that I feel justifies them potentially coming into play untapped. Otherwise you could just play one of the trilands (Ones from Alara and Khans block.) that make all 3 colors each time if it always came into play untapped and be better off.
Anyways, thank you for such a cool contest, im a fan of your contests please continue to host them (when you have time of course)! I haven't checked out your triple black contest yet but will be doing so soon, maybe tonight if possible. Congrats to the winners and other honorable mentions!
If you favorite anything, favorite what you'd like. I dont think you offer faves for prizes, but if you do, im ok with you picking what youd like out. The feedback is the best part I think though. Ok ttyl!
@sorinjace: Instead of Arroyo, you could add any word that suggests blue or white mana - I like brook for alliteration, but anything's fine. I just think that Magic cards shouldn't have words that are too obscure.
As far as favorites, I just favorited every honorable mention.
@everyone else: You're welcome.
Congrats other @Winners and @Mentionables!
Congrats to all winners and mentionables!
Thanks a lot!
Well, you're not the first to tell me the mechanic is flawed. The lands were quite similar with Temples yes, yet I still wanted to create a land cycle that used the opposite version of scry, no matter how bad it turned out.
@TenebrisNemo: I stand by my issues with the mechanic of sight. I do think it has the potential to work, and in a set with proper infrastructure the shrines are a great fit. I just didn't feel that they were a fit in a vacuum.
Anyway, thanks for participating and you're welcome for feedback, everyone. If you have further questions about your feedback or something else, feel free to raise them here, or in a PM with me, I guess. I always feel like I should stop getting involved in these arguments over my feedback, but I'm realizing that I honestly like doing it, so if you have questions, go ahead.
Such as "The point is that there's no disadvantage to slotting 8 of these into every deck of a color, and 16 in a two-color deck. There's no thought when deckbuilding since it's better than a basic land in every scenario. If every nonbasic land was better than a basic land, it would set a precedent for people to just forgo basic lands."
No one would do this. If you think that's how decking building would go at very high level, are uninformed on the subject then. For the folks in the audience I will break this down so they will understand why you are dead wrong on this...
Let's imagine we are building a green and white deck. So without factoring other cards in the current or just prior to rotation I would not be just slapping 16 of the lands I created into a deck. Your deck would also still require additional lands to fill out as most decks run 22-26 lands.
I'd pick the two lands that produce both green and white mana. Giving me 8 lands. (Which would be fairly normal as standards generally have two dual lands per a deck. Such as Shock and check or temples in the current standards.)
But you are suggesting players would also use these lands in the place of basic land cards...because they can....which is absolutely false if it's purely a green/white deck with no side board options that splash an extra color. So they'd include these lands according to you......
Here's why that is nonsense and would simply slot basic forests and plains in the place of them.... (or other duals, utility lands or evolving wilds)
- It would increase the cost of the deck pointlessly. You'd never need use either of those lands for the other colors you aren't playing. These lands would without a doubt cost more than basic lands you'd run in their place as rare cards. Even on the cheap end they'd be atleast a dollar. If they were being played in tons of formats they might be 10+ dollars a pop for ZERO improvement to your deck. This alone makes this a poor decision to build that way. Even if you build decks with spare no expense you wouldn't be wasting your money on this when you could bling your deck out with foil full art lands instead.
- You are not factoring in how it interacts with other cards in the format. If these lands were in the current standard or previous, there's plenty of cards that want more basic in your deck. Such as ...
These sort of lands want more basics and you would just be increasing the odds of them coming into play tapped. (or check lands prior to rotation) You can't search your deck for the duals I made since they lack any other type as most spells and abilities(such as evolving wilds) that typically allow them to be searched for. Being in green you normally can ramp for land, so I'd be running basics just so I'd have less searching and shuffling to do. Reducing the number of possible lands to fetch for basics would not make this process any easier. So between lands that want more of the basic type present when played, which is especially common in monocolored decks and their lack of utility to interact with other spells and abilities this deck building choice would not be helping me at all.
-It increases the odds of anti basic land hate harming your deck. It's not unheard of for Wizards of the coast print cards that mess with nonbasic lands. Back to Basics, Burning Earth, Primal Order, Blood moon, Ruination, etc to name a few. You would be increasing your vulnerability to these sort of things for no strategic value. Your deck is safer running 8 more basics in their place.
- High level players would never do this for the following reason. If you are not aware high level players run basic lands of all the same type in their deck. They will pick a single art, and make that the entire deck so when someone sees their hand, and they play a land they give their opponent no new information. By including 8 more cards that are unique from your basics you are allowing more information to your opponent. If someone Thoughtseizes me and sees I have two forests and a plains and then put a Verdant Wetlands into play on my following turn...they know that's the card I drew. If I put another basic land in the place of that, I might drawn something more dangerous to their plans or I just drew another land but they can't confirm that. This can be huge if your are trying lure your opponent into using their removal on expendable cards. So for this reason no one at a high level pointlessly include 8 nonbasics in the place of 8 basics.
So for those reason following your direction and including 16 of the my lands in your deck building process is a no brainer way build a deck is completely false. It is a strictly worse option than running 8 more basic lands. This nonsense falls apart even more if a player is building a deck with 3-5 colors, as there's tons of decisions to be made each game about what color to choose how many to include of each kind. I might not have won this contest but I soundly won this debate. That was all the reward I needed.