Readers' Vapor Ops Answers

Posted in Latest Developments on April 24, 2003

By Randy Buehler

Pasted straight from the Inbox

White Uncommon

New World Angel

Creature - Angel
2/3
Flying
Whenever New World Angel is put into a graveyard, return it to play and sacrifice a permanent.
Whenever New World Angel deals damage to a player, you may add to your mana pool.

JAGVGR
New World Angel seems like it is simply too easy to abuse in some kind of mana combo, be it by having it deal damage to the opponent, then abusing the white mana with Celestial Dawn or some other effect, or by using its "deathback" ability combined with something like Ashnod's Altar. I will grant that the ability to return upon death seems quite cool, and if it were simply granted a mana cost as an additional cost, then it would probably be balanced. The damage dealing ability is nice, but overall I'm not really sure how well it fits in with white's themes.

Will Fox
. . . You could also get just about infinite mana with this thing. Put a Lavamancer's Skill on it and some way to untap it, and there you go. You might have forgot to put the combat damage clause on it. If not this is really broken.

Brian Little
First, this is WAY too good in the uncommon slot for limited. It would be a ridiculously overpowered card in that environment. Second, while I feel the casting cost is well-balanced when taking into account both its recursion ability and its damage triggered ability with evasion to make it work more often, I don't feel that the mana adding is in flavor for white. Perhaps if this were a gold card, most likely green-white but potentially red-white or black-white, it would make since because they are the more fast, mana-friendly colors.

Kenneth I. Patterson
The mana generation ability as printed is not playable; it should probably be changed to "during your next main phase." Forcing people to play a lot of 2-mana instants is too weak a bonus for a 5-mana 2/3 flyer. The auto-resurrection ability seems to be a bit of a rules nightmare; if it's your only permanent, it seems to cause a loop where you have to keep sacrificing it over and over again.

Adam Rasmussen
This card would create an infinite loop when its controller controls no other permanents, resulting in a draw. It shouldn't come back into play until end of turn. Also, its second ability is awful because it's too hard to spend mana during combat. Maybe it should have Spirit Link instead. Instead of two mana, you get two life!

Matt Weinberg
First thing I looked at was the casting cost to power/toughness ratio. 4W for a 2/3 flier is a little weak, but considering the powers of this card, it's actually a bit overpowered. I'd compare the card to Ivory Gargoyles. For 4W, you were given a 2/2 flier with a more strict drawback (loss of a draw) as opposed to this one (loss of a permanent). While I'm at this point, the card is complex enough to be a rare, not an uncommon. Still looking at the first ability "Whenever New World Angel is put into a graveyard, return it to play and sacrifice a permanent" I see a problem. With two of this card, a player could create a loop with two of them... in an extreme case, an unbounded loop. Therefore this power needs to be changed... I'd change it to a land sacrifice rather than a permanent sacrifice. This also helps to make sense of the second ability, the one that generates mana. This ability would normally be in green, but since white is allied to green, it's okay here. My version of this card - change commonality to rare, change return to play ability to require land sacrifice.

Nathan Fleming
Definitely should not be printed as is. 4W for a 2/3 flyer isn't bad, but its near un-killability makes it overpowered for its cost. Not to mention the Angel could be recurred from the graveyard infinite times. Find any card or combination that generates mana a creature comes into play (a la Mana Echoes) and that's relatively easy infinite mana. Not good. Perhaps the wording could be changed. "[When] ~this~ is put into a graveyard from play, you may sacrifice a permanent. If you do, return ~this~ to play." The second ability will rarely be activated by the controller, so it seems like a waste of mana cost. Scratch it. So now we have a 4W-cost 2/3 flyer with super regeneration. I'd probably up the mana cost to 5W or require more of a color commitment with 3WW.

Eric Fletcher
Verdict: Absolutely Horrible. a) White shouldn't be adding mana . . . and adding mana during the attack step after damage is useless anyway. b) The first ability is an automatic infinite loop when combined with any mass removal spell . . . and drawn games from a 2-card combo are a "bad thing"

Lich88
No, never ever ever. This combos disgustingly with many, many cards, most notably Nantuko Husk or Ashnod's Altar. A card that turns all of your permanents into "2 damage to your opponent" or "add 2 mana to your mana pool" with just one other card that doubles as a creature is completely unprintable.

Chris Plottke
I have one very big concern however about the ability of the angel to put itself into the graveyard an arbitrary amount of times. This could cause come into play effects like soul warden, or go to graveyard effects to trigger an arbitrary amount of times. I think this could be dangerous and the ability should be reworded to "Whenever NW Angel is put into a graveyard from play, sacrifice a permanent. If you do, return NW Angel into play." or something to the same effect, but perhaps make it more clear you must sacrifice a permanent if you can.

Matt Vienneau
The first ability is not a white ability, it's a black ability -- it involves graveyard interaction, reanimation of sorts and sacrifice. Second ability is a green ability that bleeds into black and red, white is not about adding mana. The first ability is potentially too powerful as, depending on the block, there are very few ways to stop the cycle. The returning enchantments from Urza's block could at least be stopped if you killed the target when they returned to play or were initially cast, but this doesn't have that problem. Combo possibilities would have to be investigated as getting a creature for free instantaneously could lead to trouble -- Ashnod's Altar comes to mind immediately. Delaying it until end of turn may fix this. The second ability has an issue in that the mana would show up in your combat phase not your second main phase if the creature deals damage when attacking. If the card is intended to be useful, the mana should appear "in your next main phase" but that seems complicated. If it's supposed to show up in your combat phase and only be used for post-combat tricks (since damage will already have been dealt) and instants, then it's not that interesting an ability and more often than not will be ignored. That it gives the mana whenever it deals damage is a bit more interesting, but seems useless outside of combo decks, so it's not interesting in limited or constructed and makes for a boring ability. Combo deck interaction would have to be looked at again as it's 20 damage to the head if they can untap it for WW after making it a pinger. A 2/3 flyer for 4W is a reasonable price, and would continue to be so in black. With the abilities the way that they are, it seems like it should be rare as the unkillable nature is very good in limited, the abilities are different and strange which is a rare trait, and it would seem to be a combo card in constructed (if played at all) and combo pieces being rare seems correct to me. Combo players are generally pretty serious and don't mind paying for the rares, and combo pieces generally suck outside of combo. And I don't like the name - sounds too blah - should have more flavour.

Kame Sherwood
I don't like this card. It's got too much stuff going on, and it's stuff which doesn't fit together. The graveyard effect is pretty cool, but way better suited to a big bad Zombie. It really doesn't belong on this card. The second ability to gain two white mana from damage infliction is interesting. I don't play white much at all and I might just not recognize something common. It certainly evens up the casting cost. But the second ability is still pretty new, I can't say whether I really like it or not until I've had a chance to play that.

Blue Common

Twiddle Bug

Creature - Insect
1/1
Flying
Sacrifice Twiddle Bug: Tap or untap target permanent.

Vikram Rangraj
I like this one. It's a weenie flyer with a useful ability would that there were more cards like this one out there. I think it should be made definitely. It also fills the slot that used to be filled by Bay Falcon and Giant Albatross

Alpha Kitten
A blue insect. . . . . OK. 1/1 flyer for 2 mana is fair enough. And the ability fits well into the color. As a common this card should see print. I could see this card as a series with different rarities, higher costs, and greater effects, such as tapping/untapping 2 and 3 permanents.

Dan Mickle
I don't think this card should be printed. If it were to be printed I would recommend that it should lose the flying ability. That plus blue really isn't the right color for insects, that's more of a green thing. The ability to sacrifice it to tap a permanent would really add to stasis or other lockdown decks, and frankly those decks don't need any more help.

Jason Kim
Firstly, the flying ability is not good enough to make up for this card's weak ability. The cost should be lowered to U and would not make this card any more powerful, but not the most broken one drop either. Either way, it's still a weak card. Could be used to make Tolarian Academy really good, but not really.

Gwa Kwlwlejek
Simple, balanced, and a skill-tester. Very much in-flavour and a good power level for a common. A-okay with me.

Andrew Wolf
This card is very balanced. If anything, it is a tad on the weak side. A 1/1 flyer for 1U is decent, if unspectacular, especially for a common card. The ability, mimicking the card Twiddle, is also unspectacular. Never a great card to begin with, adding the Twiddle mechanic to a creature really does very little for the effect. Is this card good or bad? It really is neither, a decidedly mediocre card that would likely never see play in Constructed, and only infrequently see play in Limited. Finally, Insect is an inapproipriate creature type for a blue creature. Perhaps it should be a Spirit or Bird instead.

Gould Berry Mears
This cards looks ok at first as is however it has a relevant ability and flying for 1U. I think if you wanted to keep it a common I'd lose the flying and make it cost U. If you wanted to keep the flying on the other hand I'd recommend a CC of UU and possibly making it a 1/2 and putting it at the uncommon slot. It seems that most CC (double casting cost of the same color) cards are uncommon but also the flying and relevant ability are nice and cheap especially for blue. Also the creature type might need to be looked into. If it loses flying I can see it as a whatever the main creature type for blue is going to be.

Zvi Mowshowitz
This card is harmless. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to find it in Bacon. Twiddle was never any good, but the idea here is to model the new limited blue flyer. Having the ability to untap any creature you have in play at any time can be a major pain to the opponent when he's trying to attack, and while it does that you get to poke in the air. Also, as far as I can tell without access to the research casual players seem to like Twiddle effects. It will have zero impact on constructed, but it's not supposed to. A reasonable filler blue common.

Andrew Cuneo
This card sucks. I hate it when you print cards like this. I would say to make it a 2/1 flier, but that's inconsistent with how you guys cost things. A 2/1 ground creature would be reasonable.

Red Common

Lazy Goblin

Creature - Goblin
2/1
Lazy Goblin can't block.

Alan Mills
This one's fine. It's a smaller Goblin Raider. For one point less of toughness it becomes one mana cheaper. Is it "strictly better" than a Goblin Raider? Yes, definitely, but not so much as to be unbalanced. As for it being a goblin, it seems totally appropriate for the goblin tribe. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing its creature type changed. Don't get me wrong. I love goblins. They're hugable, kissable, sweet gooey bundles of strawberry-colored happiness, but come on, we need to get a break from them every once in a while.

Pierre Dupont
Too cheap! It's ability to be unable to block is NOT a drawback, let's remember Shadow creatures. Too fast for the current Standard, or at least post-Onslaught Standard, and this would give 1.x 8 Jackal Pups. Compare to the 2/2 Goblin that cannot block, he costs 1R.

Helge Rohde
This red 2/1 goblin is a very good card since it is so cheap for its power/toughness and goblins has some very good tribal effects. The card doesn't have a big enough drawback. It would almost only be used as an attacker even if it didn't have the drawback. Red has got many strong cards lately and this would only add to their latest collection. Sligh would be even faster and that could imbalance the color-wheel. I do not think this card should be printed unless tweaked a bit. For example 3/1 for RR. This would reduce its speed, but not so much of its power. Perhaps it should be uncommon instead of common.

Tim Gillam
Lazy Goblin? No, no, no. A lot of the time, this would be even better than Jackal Pup. Being unable to block is not much of a drawback, and definitely not enough to justify such a powerful one-drop.

Kenneth I. Patterson
No. This one should be filed along with Mana Drain under the "when R&D gets hit by a bus" category. Red already has enough 2/1s for R, and this one has less of a drawback than any of them.

Frank Meulblok
How does "no" sound? 2/1 for 1 should have bigger drawback.

Squirrl Mastr
Lazy Goblin: Change creature type to something non-tribal This card may seem too good to some, since it is 1 mana for a 2/1, and the can't block ability is really unimportant since the creature almost never blocks anyway. However, currently, fatties and tribal rules, and since it is neither, it probably wont be too much of a problem.

Gwa Kwlwlejk
Good Lord, NO. Too fast to be balanced, and red isn't supposed to be the best weenie colour. Drop entirely; changing the cost makes it inferior to Goblin Raider, and changing the power/toughness makes the card unplayable and/or further out of flavour.

Alex
Everyone knows the correct answer. It's quite unfortunate as I have always been a great fan of Kird Ape, Jackal Pup and Mogg Fanatic. But these times are gone and the best 2/1 for 1 mana MTG could now provide seems to be Scarred Puma. So this card will never see print (or any other of the like). The corrected card already exists : it's Goblin Raider.

Elliot Fung
Obviously too good. But the hard part is fixing it without crippling it or rehashing something everyone has already seen. Perhaps if its controller took damage equal to damage dealt to and dealt by this goblin. Change the name too, this goblin won't be lazy since I'll be attacking with him every turn. =)

Green Rare

Norwood Leprechaun

Creature - Leprechaun
2/4
If Norwood Leprechaun could normally block a creature, it can't block that creature.
If Norwood Leprechaun would normally be unable to block a creature, it may block that creature.

Ridiculous Hat
Is a 2/4 wall that can only block flying, shadow, fear and unblockable creatures worth it? This could cause some rules confusion with falter effects and such, but seeing as it's a rare it shouldn't be too big of an issue. It certainly has appeal to the "gee whiz" demographic -- the card is fairly unique.

Mike Wiseman
Cool idea. A non-flyer that can only block flyers, or unblockable creatures, or pro-green creatures. How would that work with an attacking Taunting Elf?

Kyle Williams
A very cool creature . . . I like it already. I would suggest some type of drawback to keep it from getting really big and such . . . like cannot be enchanted. Also the wording could create a lot of confusion about how many creatures it can block. "It can normally not block this creature, because it's blocking a different creature, so that means it can block this creature?"

Nathan Fleming
Do you want to give judges headaches? Seriously, I'm not sure how easily this fits into the current rules. For a rare, 1GG for 2/4 isn't horrible, especially with it's strange blocking habits. This card would have to go through a brainstorming gauntlet before it was printed.

Jason Kim
Overpriced firstly. For abilities this bad, this card is very overpriced. Second, this card would create many rules confusions. So now it can block creatures with protection from green, but then nothing happens. Or it can be provoked, but then not block. Provoke brings up an interesting dilemma with this card.

Andy Clautice
While interesting, I think the confusion this would probably cause wouldn't be worth it. It can block while tapped, of all things, and when there's a Bedlam out. . . . That, plus the fact that it's a little bigger than I'd like for 3 mana makes me not really like this guy. Rules breaking is ok, but this is a little too much. So I'd say don't print this as it is for power reasons, but don't print it at all for confusion reasons.

Frederik Van Saet
Another tough one since it has a very unusual ability (which makes this card definitely a rare). It makes the Leprechaun rather bad at blocking, although it can block unblockable creatures - tough to rate. To avoid confusion, I would change the second part of the ability to: "If Norwood Leprechaun would normally be unable to block a creature #and is untapped#, it may block that creature." I think the card is ok at GG1 for a 2/4 creature.

Peter Kvetlosky
This card seems cool enough, it's well costed and has a very interesting ability. Personally I think that this card would be an absolute blast and would love to see something like it printed. Only thing to consider is that the ability might be confusing for people.

Marc Cartier
Yay, leprechauns. The drawback far outweighs the benefit. Most creatures can be blocked by anything, so this isn't very useful. Against a blue deck, they could just use an Air Bladder so it can't block their flyers (blue decks should ALWAYS have flyers). Only cards like Goblin War Drums can make it useful, but that's kind of grayline. This would make a nice common, but its far too bad to be a rare.

Steffan Hagen
This one looks innocent, but when I visualize it in a real combat situation, the area beyond my eyes starts to hurt. Will also inspire questions like "Can this block any number of creatures?", since beyond the first creature, it won't usually be able to block the others . . . Nightmare card.

Laurie Cheers
No -- the blocking rules have enough problems already, thanks. (If a Lured creature is attacking, could Norwood Leprechaun "normally block" any other attacking creatures?)

Erik Lauer
This text, and the intent, are not entirely clear. If the NL is tapped, can it block everything? Can it block multiple creatures? Can it block your own creatures? Whatever the intent is, the wording needs to be more clear, so I do not think this should be printed.

Andrew Kolpecky
For its pt/mc/na ratio, it seemed fine, as a natural 2/4 for 3. The two green restricted it from too much splash and in limited play. My main problem with this card was its ability. The ability to me seemed like it could cause massive headaches should the card ever see print. It breaks rules in a bad way - creates situations that may need errata or some type of ruling such as blocking phantom warrior - it can block "unblockable" creatures - which creature with those abilities has priority? The question arises, what could it normally block? Well, it can normally block only one creature, not two, so can it block a second since it normally could not? What about a third? Can it normally block fliers because of its second ability? Can it therefore not block at all because abilities overlap? Suppose bedlam is in play -- can leprechaun block since it can "normally" block none of those? I guess it would come down to the definition of normal. Final Verdict: This is a bad card due to rules and should not see print unless it is VERY well worded.

Jason Klein
Wrong color people. This is so a white card! Green is not one to care so much about the defense of the creature, green mages would prefer their 3/3 opposed to this 2/4. As for its ability, it is so close to attacking does not cause this to tap that you might as will give it that ability, which is a very white ability.

Alex Wilcox
If it could, it can't...if it would, it may... Come again? Far too confusing for something of very little real use. Get rid of it.

Gary Steffans Jr.
HUH? This card is weird. Really weird. This card would require so much explanation in a FAQ sheet that it might as well come with one in a pack. Also, 2/4 for 3 is a pretty good deal. This stops flyers, shadow, fear, unblockable creatures, and protection from green creatures (or if you change his colors . . . must stop inner Combo player. . . .). This could confuse and befuddle limited, and make creature stalls last longer. Also leprechauns are not a creature type that I know of (Aisling is a Fairy, isn't it?). I dunno . . . green's main ways of stopping flyers are 2/4 for 4 mana, or 1/3 for 3. This is a strictly better card, yet strictly worse. If ya wanted the rules headaches, then I would say print it for the sheer joy little kids would get with being able to stop huge unblockable guys (Tidal Kraken anyone?). This would be really good, but very quirky. It's for those reasons that I both love and hate this card.

Gold Rare

Life Cycle

Enchantment
: Put a wood counter on target creature.
: Put a sludge counter on target creature.
Whenever a creature is put into a graveyard, for each wood and sludge counter on it, put a 2/3 green and black Fungoid token into play. For each excess wood counter on that creature, put a 0/3 green Woodling token into play. For each excess sludge counter on the creature, put a 2/1 black Sludgling token into play.

Alpha Kitten
Quite simply . . . . . . TOO CONFUSING and TOO Hard to keep track of the different tokens. Tokens detract from the game being a CARD game.

Derick
Wow, confusing. Sounds like its trying to be a god card that can do everything in the game. 3 different creature variants from one 4 casting cost enchantment? It's way too powerful, and if it WERE to be printed it would need to be booster up in casting cost and have a upkeep cost tacked onto it. I personally would dump it and start again with the same basic concept.

Michael Perry
I like the card. It's creative and can be versatile. I only have one concern. It's that there's a lot of different types of counters and tokens being produce by just one card. Can players keep track of that many different kinds of noncard permanents? I wouldn't think so. And from the experiences of actually playing I'd say it'd be EXTREMELY hard. Heck, it's hard enough keeping track of two different kinds of creature tokens in a deck without the DCI promo tokens.

Matt Weinberg
This card confused me. I had to read it three times to fully understand it. Keeping track of two types of counters is a nightmare. Once I understood the card, I thought that it was too powerful. Only one color needs to be played to make the card good. I can't think of a safe way to change this card, which would almost always be a first pick in draft, and make the cut in sealed deck. Too abusive. Slow perhaps . . . but it could easily get out of control. My change -- back to the drawing board for this card.

Dan Zimmer
Easily broken. With green's ability to produce mana and black's ability to use the graveyard effectively, the player could amass an army by just starting with one creature in play. Should not be printed as it currently is... at least make it when it's a non token creature going to the graveyard.

Nathan Fleming
Too many different types of counters! Also, those tokens are pretty big considering you can get quite a few for the "cost" of one creature card. This card reminds me of Centaur Glade, which many think to be overpowered while some think it is overrated. I can imagine R&D printing this as a "fixed" Centaur Glade. Maybe something like 2BG to play, "1BG: Put a fungus counter on target creature. Whenever a creature is put into a graveyard from play, put a 2/2(?) Fungus/Zombie/tokeny creature token into play for each fungus counter on that creature." In a way, it's cheaper than Centaur Glade, but also harder to get the tokens.

Andrew Makar
Timmy won't see creatures. Johnny may like it if he bothers to read the text. Spike will curse you and your family.

Stephen M. Sloboda
AUGH!!! Great idea, but PLEASE can it be simplified? How about: "Whenever a creature goes into a graveyard from play, put a 0/3 green Woodling token into play for each wood counter on it and a 2/1 black Sludgling token into play." If the 2/3 green-black Fungoid is part of the flavor of the card, maybe there should be another cost that says: "Sacrifice a Woodling and a Sludgling: put a 2/3 yadda yadda I've spent too much time on this one." Needs work, but a solid idea both flavor-wise and strategy-wise.

Shay Palachy
Wow, too strong. The counters costs should be more expensive (by 1 or 2 mana) and the tokens less strong, otherwise it's just too easy to spend all your mana on a one of your creatures with sacrificing ability, and then sacrificing him for the effect and the tokens. Because green has excellent mana generators, it's too easy to get lots of good tokens this way.

Charlie Mauck
Mechanical Analysis: This card is hideous! Obviously someone had some fun writing this as a bad example. Not only is it overly long and complicated, and the tokens a nightmare to keep track of, it also is pointless. Why do the different counters give out different creatures? Why don't their P/T add up? What do "Wood" and "Sludge" counters have to do with the tokens? There just doesn't really seem to be a focused purpose to the card. There are so many cleaner, more direct ways of doing a card like this, I'm not sure what the purpose here would be.

Alan Mills
What isn't wrong with this enchantment? This thing is just ridiculous! How are players supposed to keep track of all those mixed-up counters and odd-sized tokens? Let's simplify this, assuming we still want to keep it a black/green enchantment. "1B: Put a sludge counter on target creature. / Whenever a creature goes to a graveyard, put X 1/1 green Saproling tokens into play where X is the number of sludge counters on that creature." Notice I changed Fungoid to Saproling. Really, not much difference between a Fungoid and a Saproling, so why make one? Okay, with that change, Life Cycle ain't so bad.

Erik Lauer
What fun, lots and lots of tokens!!! I believe this is underpowered, and in particular, the green token is too weak. Consider that a 0/3 for G is not so hot, and a 2/1 for B would be too good. So make it overall a 3/3 for both, 1/3 for G, and 2/1 for B. Only kidding! Keeping track of both types of tokens on every creature is a mess. Only print this as part of a "Jelly Bean Lover's" set. Then, just make the green ones a 1/3 as above :)

Andrew Wolf
I like the concept of this card, the ability to get something out of your creatures when they die, much like Elephant Guide or Verdant Succession. My problem with this card is that I believe it to be very poorly worded. It is unclear exactly what is generated when a creature goes to the graveyard based on which counters are on it. I believe that in essence, if you have exactly one of each counter, you get a 2/3, and for each additional counter of a type, you get a 0/3 or a 2/1. Also, the math doesn't add up, as you would think that a 0/3 and a 2/1 would net you a 2/4, not a 2/3. Clearly, this card can be worded better, but I believe that that is not the biggest issue with this card.

Zvi Mowshowitz
This card has all sorts of issues, not counting the opposing colors in the casting cost. The first is that it is creating two types of tokens and placing both of them onto the same creatures. That's a recipe for confusion and rightfully violates the design rules. You can't expect players to track both types of tokens. That's not counting the fact that you then put three different types of token creatures into play, none of which have a nice power/toughness ratio, so no printed tokens will do the job here either. No one is going to know what the hell the table looks like. On another note, the numbers on the creatures are unbalanced, because 2/1 for two mana is a ton better than 2/3 for four, so anyone who has enough black mana will rarely use the green ability at all. For that reason, this card is out as designed. You could change it so that it has only one ability, either for GB, 1GB or 2GB, and it made a standard token type, probably a 1/1 for two mana or a 2/2 for more than that, but that still leaves the opposite colors to deal with. I do see why those colors are there. I would recommend killing the card, as it is not worth the issues it causes.

Dave Guskin
Life Cycle is a cool concept gone horribly awry. Wood counters, sludge counters, Fungoid tokens, Woodling tokens, Sludgling tokens. Wow. Not only does the break the usual rule of tokens being X/X critters when generated, but it makes things incredibly confusing if, say, Mr. Babycakes is out. "I'll put 2 wood counters on that guy, and a sludge counter on that guy." "But they each already have 2 +1/+1 counters!" Complication in this way just detracts from the game, and it also opens up a window for "creative counter management", or cheating as some call it. Bad news.

Adrian den Ouden
Too much rules text, I doubt it'd fit on the card, and the wording is confusing as well. I had to read it twice to understand what it means. It's a fun idea, but I don't think it'd be a good card to print just because it's too complicated. Having two separate types of counters on a single creature created by the same permanent would be difficult to keep track of as it would require players to use two separate colors of counters. Also, the ability is kind of redundant as being able to produce 2 2/1 creature for 2BB is better than being able to creature 1 2/3 creature for 2BG. If you change it to be a single color (probably green), only use one type of counter, and for flavor's sake create whatever kind of token is dominant in the block (insects in Onslaught block, squirrels in Odyssey, saprolings in Invasion, etc.), it might be a printable card, but it needs some work.

Land Uncommon

Heart of Argoth
Legendary Land
When Heart of Argoth comes into play, you may play an additional land.
: Add to your mana pool.

RacerX2186
The land isn't bad, but it's certainly not as impressive as it could be. It's the legendary part that kills the deal. But I suppose if one was playing aggressively, the tempo boost might be a great plus. Maybe too great. I'd watch that one real carefully in playtesting.

blood lust
I just noticed that Heart of Argoth is both a legend, and its not rare, can you do this? is this legal?

Tim Gillam
Heart of Argoth is insane. It's basically strictly better than Forest, and even its legendary status wouldn't prevent people from playing 4 in a deck. It also isn't limited to green decks, as any deck could throw a few in to speed up their mana. No way can this be made.

Brian Little
First, I feel this should be a rare card. Uncommon legends are a terrible idea, in my opinion. Secondly, I think this card is extremely broken for the same reason that Moxes were -- anything that breaks the one-land-a-turn rule without a drawback will break the game wide open. I suggest that the land needs to come into play tapped, or force you to sacrifice another land, preferably a forest or any basic lapped, for it to come into play, although the tap ability would be preferable to the sacrifice ability (as, with the sacrifice, you could get 4 mana on turn 2 if you played an elf or bird on turn one).

Jeffrey Tsair
If you are going to bounce this, it would be the basis for a new deck. Otherwise, it's no different from an Elvish Pioneer.

Nathan Fleming
Strictly better than a basic forest? I know it's legendary, but I thought the point of non-basics were to promote deckbuilding decisions, not make them for you. Every green deck ever played would play at least 2 of these, probably 3, maybe 4. A first turn HoA would be devastating in any format. So how to fix while maintaining the card concept? Comes into play tapped? I'd still play it almost all the time. The additional land also comes into play tapped? Getting closer, but still a superior land play in most circumstances. I think the ability to play more than one land in a turn is one of the most easily abused abilities in the game. Can you imagine this with Exploration? Baaaaaaaad for Extended. Much more than can be said here must be changed about this card.

Brian Rogers
This land seems to be stricly better than a forest. sure, there is the drawback of not being able to play the 2nd or 3rd one you draw, but on turn 1, it gives you access to 2 mana, no waiting. There is no reason not to play 1 of these in a green deck and it is basically like a new Mox, especially if there is one in each color, then standard decks will just play one of each. even if they came into play tapped, on turn 2, you could still have 7 lands in play. If you want to make this land, then it should come into play tapped and it should make the aditional land come into play tapped, but to stop if from comboing with other cards in they cycle, you would need to change it to "When 'this' comes into play, you may put a BASIC land into play TAPPED."

David Hammond
Heart of Argoth basically states that you can sacrifice card advantage to have more mana. Because of its legendary status however, it can't really be deemed broken by any means. However, as any green player (oh joy, more green mana acceleration) is going to want two, making it rare would be better for the trade market than leaving it uncommon (who wants a box full of these when instead they can just trade for the ones they want?

Ricky Ng
-Were you guys drunk? I mean seriously, is it possible for you to turn a color that can produce enough mana to play the biggest creatures on the 3 turn to now play that creature on the 2nd? With a green/red deck, the damage would come so fast along with big creatures that it would become the next dominate tourney deck. Do you guys really want the "green/red (whatever color they make together) summer"?

Matt Benjamin
I certainly hope this card isn't part of a cycle! Even as is, it's basically just a Mox Emerald that can't be disenchanted. Far, far too powerful, it breaks too many rules. It is strictly superior to a forest, all green decks would run one. It's even possible other decks would run it simply for the uncounterable, nearly indestructable acceleration. If it had a drawback, like it came into play tapped, or made you take damage when activated, it could be more interesting though. The fact that it is legend means a deck cannot be built around it effectively, so it would remain too powerful, but wouldn't be reliable enough to effectively abuse. Definitely unprintable in it's current incarnation however.

Edwin Kunkle
I've been playing since 1994, I still own moxes and a Black Lotus, and this new card (Heart of Argoth) is one of the best ideas I've seen in a long time. I've always thought green, being the color of mana generation, could have the ability to increase its mana in a similar fashion to the Moxes. Heart of Argoth is almost perfect in that respect, although maybe it should only let you play forests as additional land. Please don't let a bunch of skeptics ruin such an excellent idea! If it's watered down too much, it'll only see less play. The almost total lack of good mana acceleration in recent years is something I'd like to see changed. The fact that R&D is now considering printing such a card as Heart of Argoth gives me hope that more such fun and exciting cards will see print. In my opinion, cards like that add an element of surprise without being too overbearing. Such a card is not even remotely as strong as Tolarian Academy (an admitted mistake), and in some cases it's not even as strong as Gaea's Cradle (a fun card which I don't consider a mistake).

Noah Weil
My gut reaction was that this card is way too good. My gut reaction is completely correct, but figuring out how to make the idea, which is a solid one, into something printable was a little tough. As it looks right now, every single deck would pack X number of these, since there's no reason not to. The fact it makes G, while in flavor, is just a bonus to decks packing this card that happen to actually be green. The legendary status makes it a swing card; whoever draws theirs first has a gigantic edge in development and promoting dead draws later on. To stick with the flavor and keep the color, I decided the best way was to print a card that had: "This card comes into play tapped. When this card comes into play, you may play an additional land (possibly tapped). When this card comes into play, if you do not control a Forest, sacrfice Heart of Argoth. T:G(or 1 colorless)" I know most of the "you must control this or sacrfice" cards are state based effects, but the double triggered abilities allow it still to be played on turn 1, and it forces heavy green decks only to use the card. Non-heavy green decks could use it, but the fewer forests they run, the less explosive it's ability is. It still has the legendary swing aspect, but all legendary cards do. At least this swing effect would only be seen if two heavy green decks matched up, which I think is a fair deal. At first I thought it should obviously be rare, and I'm still leaning towards it. However, with the new wording I think it "could" fly as an uncommon. But overall I think it should be rare. One is for the legendary status, making it flavorfully unique. But from a sealed/draft application, making it uncommon would bump its swing value up pretty large. Limited is really not the format for people to have legendary cards stuck in their hand. Making it rare makes that risk almost negligible. My roommate and I were talking about Heart of Argoth and arguing about whether in fact it would go in every single deck, as it's currently written. He believed that the chance for people getting screwed over holding them while their opponent laid the first one would deter people from playing the card in the first place. While that is a possibility, I feel the benefits outweigh the risks. If you run it and they run it, it's 50/50(literally a coin flip) whether you or your opponent will get screwed. If you don't run it and they do, you'll be getting screwed every time. It's possible I'm over-valuing the card's power level, but I don't think so. It's simply strictly better than any other early land drop and while it won't automatically win you the game, it certainly will sometimes. And a land that has the potential to outright win seems far too good to me.

Ben Train
I'm not that bright (Insert your own joke here. But I'm sure I didn't have to tell you that.) but even I can tell this is not fair. It needs to have a draw back (losing life isn't big enough) and a substantial one at that. Comes into play tapped would work. Strong, but not game breaking strong (with the comes into play tapped thing). (By the way, I would actually love this. Please print.) Bottom Line: I really like it, but unfair.

Latest Latest Developments Articles

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

June 9, 2017

Changes by, Sam Stoddard

Hello and welcome to another edition of Latest Developments! Today I'm going to talk about several kinds of changes within R&D and how we deal with those. Card Changes From the day ...

Learn More

Latest Developments

June 2, 2017

Things I've Learned by, Sam Stoddard

Hello, and welcome to another edition of Latest Developments! This week is the five-year anniversary of me joining Wizards of the Coast as a contractor on the development team. My officia...

Learn More

Articles

Articles

Latest Developments Archive

Consult the archives for more articles!

See All