I don't like having the land stay in play after you use it. The wording is a little off, as well. "When this enters the battlefield, exile cards from the top your library until you exile a land card. Put that card onto the battlefield. Put this card and the exiled cards on the bottom of your library in a random order."
And is completely insane with Bouncelands. Lands that don't tap for mana - especially ones that do literally nothing after their ability has resolved - are not intuitive and poor design.
Yes, with bounce lands this probably would be unprintable, but I would like you to clarify why a land needs to do something at all times. This is something that I have disagreed with Wizards on for sometime and would like some perspective on the issue.
There are several reasons. First, it's not intuitive for players. When you explain the game to someone, how do you explain Lands? "Lands tap for mana." Maybe you say it semantically differently, but it's simply an assumption that players make. It can also be confusing for the opponent, who will often quickly count your land and might forget that that one taps for nothing. Flavor-wise, in the game the act of playing a land is forming a bond with that land to draw power, or mana, from it. Thus lands that don't tap for mana may well have not been lands at all. You are forming a bond with this place that forms you a bond with this other land that you could have formed a bond with in the first place?
If unintuitive, confusing during game play, and nonsense flavor aren't enough reasons to not print lands like this, then I have no idea by what criteria you design cards.
Card design is a creative process. If we posted perfect, ready to print cards every time, all one could say is "Good Job!" and move on. My designs sometimes are to show what happens when you push the unwritten rules. I understand the reasons that you have listed and I am glad you shared them. When I asked you to explain, I was looking for that perspective. However, I would appreciate if you would attack the cards and not the designer. It is not wrong to be creative and ask unusual questions through design. I do welcome your insight on future cards and I encourage you to register to be accountable for your posts.
I have a few things to comment both on the card and the other posts. First the card: This land gives you a random basic land at worst or a random nonbasic that is alright. I can't imagine it being as broken as cascade where you could alter your deck to just hit a few key spells (IE: Cascade grinding, swans combo, ect). It is a bit wordy and could end up getting a keyword, so it could be use on other types of cards as well. The only problem I see with it, combo wise, is that you can play it in vintage Ichorid and artificially increase the number of bazaars I play.
Secondly the posts: Anonymous said: "It can also be confusing for the opponent, who will often quickly count your land and might forget that that one taps for nothing." I am not sure what level of magic you play, but competitive level magic requires that you understand what cards do. I have never lost a game because I "forgot" that a land added more. Not in standard, limited, vintage or any other format. Furthermore, it is up to my opponent to ask how much mana can I produce this turn. If they assume it taps for a mana then that's their mistake to make. In actuality, this game mainly revolves around capitalizing on your opponents mistakes. You also say, "it's not intuitive for players. When you explain the game to someone, how do you explain Lands? "Lands tap for mana." So according to your "logic" cards like evolving wilds, terramorphic expanse, arena, or any of the fetch lands are confusing and wrong. Also, even though basic lands just have their symbol printed on them they still have the ability that says "Tap add a (Color here) to your mana pool". Please next time do some research before making comments and trying to attack the designer, it only makes you look like a fool.
I don't like having the land stay in play after you use it. The wording is a little off, as well. "When this enters the battlefield, exile cards from the top your library until you exile a land card. Put that card onto the battlefield. Put this card and the exiled cards on the bottom of your library in a random order."
ReplyDeleteWhoops! I must have forgotten to update it. The land sticking around was intentional. Works really well with Pox and Mana Vortex.
ReplyDeleteAnd is completely insane with Bouncelands. Lands that don't tap for mana - especially ones that do literally nothing after their ability has resolved - are not intuitive and poor design.
ReplyDeleteYes, with bounce lands this probably would be unprintable, but I would like you to clarify why a land needs to do something at all times. This is something that I have disagreed with Wizards on for sometime and would like some perspective on the issue.
DeleteThere are several reasons. First, it's not intuitive for players. When you explain the game to someone, how do you explain Lands? "Lands tap for mana." Maybe you say it semantically differently, but it's simply an assumption that players make. It can also be confusing for the opponent, who will often quickly count your land and might forget that that one taps for nothing. Flavor-wise, in the game the act of playing a land is forming a bond with that land to draw power, or mana, from it. Thus lands that don't tap for mana may well have not been lands at all. You are forming a bond with this place that forms you a bond with this other land that you could have formed a bond with in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIf unintuitive, confusing during game play, and nonsense flavor aren't enough reasons to not print lands like this, then I have no idea by what criteria you design cards.
Card design is a creative process. If we posted perfect, ready to print cards every time, all one could say is "Good Job!" and move on. My designs sometimes are to show what happens when you push the unwritten rules. I understand the reasons that you have listed and I am glad you shared them. When I asked you to explain, I was looking for that perspective. However, I would appreciate if you would attack the cards and not the designer. It is not wrong to be creative and ask unusual questions through design. I do welcome your insight on future cards and I encourage you to register to be accountable for your posts.
DeleteI have a few things to comment both on the card and the other posts.
ReplyDeleteFirst the card: This land gives you a random basic land at worst or a random nonbasic that is alright. I can't imagine it being as broken as cascade where you could alter your deck to just hit a few key spells (IE: Cascade grinding, swans combo, ect). It is a bit wordy and could end up getting a keyword, so it could be use on other types of cards as well. The only problem I see with it, combo wise, is that you can play it in vintage Ichorid and artificially increase the number of bazaars I play.
Secondly the posts: Anonymous said: "It can also be confusing for the opponent, who will often quickly count your land and might forget that that one taps for nothing." I am not sure what level of magic you play, but competitive level magic requires that you understand what cards do. I have never lost a game because I "forgot" that a land added more. Not in standard, limited, vintage or any other format. Furthermore, it is up to my opponent to ask how much mana can I produce this turn. If they assume it taps for a mana then that's their mistake to make. In actuality, this game mainly revolves around capitalizing on your opponents mistakes. You also say, "it's not intuitive for players. When you explain the game to someone, how do you explain Lands? "Lands tap for mana." So according to your "logic" cards like evolving wilds, terramorphic expanse, arena, or any of the fetch lands are confusing and wrong. Also, even though basic lands just have their symbol printed on them they still have the ability that says "Tap add a (Color here) to your mana pool". Please next time do some research before making comments and trying to attack the designer, it only makes you look like a fool.