Question directed to competitive legacy players
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Aug. 1, 2016, 8:59 p.m. by MagicalHacker
Would a cycle of ten cards illustrated by the following design be broken in competitive legacy/vintage? I think it's an obvious no, but I have no evidence to show that I understand the way the format would respond to a card like this.
Shiv, Volcanic Island
Legendary Land - Island Mountain
This card can only be in a deck if there are no other Island Mountains in that deck.
Servo_Token says... #5
You'd require a deck check of every deck at every tournament ever if this were to be a thing. I don't like it and I don't think that it would be played even as a budget replacement.
August 1, 2016 9:34 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum(auto-generated comment)
August 1, 2016 9:36 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #7
DevoidMage, I mean, how do you win a tournament going through exactly 0 deck checks? Do they never do those? I honestly don't know.
August 1, 2016 10:10 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #8
It is a functional reprint of a reserve list card and part of the reserve list BS is prohibiting functional reprints.
TheHroth are you saying that ABUR duals are unplayable because of Wasteland?
August 1, 2016 10:21 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #9
oh sorry didn't see that you made it legendary and dint think about that last part making it singleton. I thought you were just trying to get around the reserve list.
August 1, 2016 10:24 p.m.
This hypothetical cycle is essentially just legendary copies of the duals that you can only play one copy of. The legendary clause means you can't just play Vesuva to copy them, and the singleton clause makes them just die horribly to Wasteland. Very far from actual dual lands being unplayable due to Wasteland, but I understand your confusion :p
August 1, 2016 11:18 p.m.
MSU_Iced_Z says... #11
But if playing Shiv means I can't play the other four Volcanic Islands, why would anyone ever want to do that?
August 1, 2016 11:36 p.m.
Agreed. Sadly competative legacy means forking out the cash for ABUR duals
While the first dual is the most important and makes shocks a lot more viable. You still want the idea.
August 2, 2016 1:15 a.m.
Agreed. Sadly competative legacy means forking out the cash for ABUR duals
While the first dual is the most important and makes shocks a lot more viable. You still want the idea.
August 2, 2016 1:15 a.m.
I'd probably change the text to "This card enters the battlefield tapped, and doesn't untap if you control a land that contains both subtypes Island and Mountain".
August 2, 2016 8:55 a.m.
Sorry there should be an extra comma-
"This card enters the battlefield tapped, and cannot untap, if you control a land that contains both subtypes Island and Mountain".
August 2, 2016 8:56 a.m.
Honestly, just making it Legendary without the singleton clause would be a solid nerf. Obv OP alongside ABURs because it allows a fifth, but as far as a budget replacement it would be a good route.
August 2, 2016 12:42 p.m.
NotSoLuckyLydia says... #18
Definitely not playable like that. If it's JUST legendary, it'd be okay. You can buy it as the first one, and play 2 more ABURs. There are very few, if any decks in the format that would want a fifth dual of any given type. It would also definitely help budget players who want to play shocks. Play one of these then two shocks, and you can fetch basics more heavily than normal in a fetch/shock deck.
August 2, 2016 6:14 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #19
Hmm, what about this (fixing wording and tweaking design):
Shiv, Volcanic Island
Legendary Land - Island Mountain
A deck cannot play "Volcanic Island" if it is playing ~.
The purpose of this design is to try to make a land that won't impact legacy enough that it will make collectors mad that the RL was circumvented while also allowing casual/social players to find a reason to not want to buy the abur duals for an optimized deck.
August 3, 2016 9:41 a.m.
That would be better, because then you can still have 3 copies of them in a deck.
Wasteland would not singlehandedly kill them anymore.
August 3, 2016 9:43 a.m. Edited.
malfeischylde says... #21
I agree with the second iteration. It's impossible to errata a card that requires every deck to be checked, although the second errata will still cause frequent checks, anyway.
August 10, 2016 8:40 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #22
Currently, deck checks would be the only way to stop someone from breaking other deck construction rules, such as playing 5 Force of Wills. However, what about the following design to prevent the need for deck checks?
Shiv, Volcanic Island
Legendary Land - Island Mountain
Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, sacrifice all lands you control named "Volcanic Island".
Thoughts?
August 10, 2016 11:33 a.m.
malfeischylde says... #23
That sounds. Much more believable. Like the legendary rule mixed with nevermore
August 10, 2016 5:06 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #24
Oh wait, there's an even simpler design!
Shiv, Volcanic Island
Legendary Land - Island Mountain
Lands you control named "Volcanic Island" are copies of ~.
TheHroth says... #2
I mean, Wasteland is a thing, so a cycle of lands like that would basically be unplayable.
August 1, 2016 9:26 p.m.