saturation duals

User avatar
folding_music
glitter pen on my mana crypt
Posts: 2351
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by folding_music » 2 years ago



Is this worded right? You can spellsling with this but you can't:

- play colorless spells
- play activated abilities, taxes or extra costs from triggered sources (eg. Akoum Firebird)
- play three-colour spells which contain but exceed these colors (eg. Korvold, Fae-Cursed King lol)

and, mmmm, is it still too strong?

user_938036
Posts: 338
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 21
Pronoun: he / him

Post by user_938036 » 2 years ago

These restrictions are more deck building restrictions rather than power level restrictions and its not even significant. In the deck that wants this its identical to an original dual land. So yah, too strong.

User avatar
spacemonaut
Bauble reclaimer
Posts: 1387
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 10
Pronoun: she / her
Location: Scotland

Post by spacemonaut » 2 years ago

That wording seems effective for your goals. We could reword it slightly to fit templating conventions better: MTG usually uses phrases like "spend this mana only to..." for permissions/restrictions, and talks about mana being spent for after-the-fact responses to how you spent your mana.

This means the template might be more like this:
Spend mana produced by Ashlands to cast only spells that are black and/or red and no other color.
(I dug around a bit: Secret Base, Cultivator Drone, and Niko Defies Destiny suggest we use "that" instead of "which"; wo cards use "which.")

I agree with @user_938036 though. In a deck that's primarily oriented towards casting black/red anyway, the restriction is basically reminder text. As worded you can't spend this to activate abilities either, but that's not a huge deal—we'll just save this particular land for casting our spells.

User avatar
void_nothing
Look On My Sash...
Posts: 15310
Joined: 5 years ago
Answers: 126
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Tal Terig, Zendikar

Post by void_nothing » 2 years ago

Yes, this is a very strong cycle, and being fetchable puts it potentially over the edge.

Is lesser usability in tricolor-or-greater decks restrictive? Yes, but it means that certain (exactly bicolor) decks can just have Alpha duals
Psst, check the second page of Custom Card Contests & Games! Because of the daily contests, a lot of games fall down to there.

The greatest (fake) pro wrestling on the internet - Collaborative Create-A-Booster - My random creations (updated regularly)

Important Facts: Colorless is not a color, Wastes is not a land type, Changeling is not a creature type

User avatar
folding_music
glitter pen on my mana crypt
Posts: 2351
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by folding_music » 2 years ago

spacemonaut, thanks for the retemplating!

Do you think they'd be acceptable with the basic types stripped away? I know it's a deckbuilding requirement but I think it's pretty big, not being able to tap them to cast colourless rocks and being tied up on which lands you can use to pay activation costs, especially assuming the set has no other duals or rainbow lands.

User avatar
spacemonaut
Bauble reclaimer
Posts: 1387
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 10
Pronoun: she / her
Location: Scotland

Post by spacemonaut » 2 years ago

Strip the basic land types and give it a novel ETB drawback trigger like "When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life." and I'd call it workable.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Custom Cards”