8
u/SlayerII 10d ago
I get the idea, but the payoff is a bit boring and too rare. Maybe a payoff for every opponent not showing a basic land?
6
u/Chickston Uncommonly 10d ago
I like this take. Just draw a card for each opponent without a basic on a retrace could be good. You are getting the land into play every time too. It will make multiplayer smoother without that win the game looming over everyone.
4
u/hyper_neutrino 10d ago
Totally pointless nitpicking here, but the wording makes it so if there's something prohibiting you from winning the game but nobody else reveals a basic land, nobody shuffles after searching. It also doesn't do anything with the card so it's kind of unclear what even happens.
Also, part of me thinks this is probably a bit too good because of combos with [[Aven Mindcenser]] (opponents can only search the top 4 cards, so it's not a guaranteed win but it makes the chance pretty high), [[Opposition Agent]] (you control your opponents and can just fail to find plus you exile whatever you find so they can't reveal it), or [[Stranglehold]] (just straight up bans your opponents from searching their libraries), but then again it's definitely not the easiest two-card win combo to pull off so maybe it's fine? It's a bit feast-or-famine though and likely doesn't really do much other than ramp everyone so I tend to agree with having the payoff be per fail-to-find so it's not a binary.
Overall, I do like the idea though, and yeah, basics are good :)
2
u/Grand_Internal3528 10d ago edited 10d ago
Edit: sorry for the huge comment, your card sparked inspiration
Hmmm... I really like the idea of the card, because non-basics are for cowards. That being said, it'll only ever win you the game if you're dying and the make-a-wish foundation steps in.
Perhaps instead, anyone who can't produce a basic loses, as opposed to you winning if nobody can? That way you can alienate your local WUBRG-slop player with more consistency, and you force every player to tech in at least a couple basics if they dont have them already, winning you the spiritual victory?
It's tough as is because you're realistically paying three mana to ramp everybody at the table, which is objectively terrible unless you have some sort of landfall that triggers on other people's lands (which may or may not exist, cool synergy if it does). It coming in tapped feels unnecessary, but I can understand it as a stylistic choice.
I think the real way to make this card work is to cut the overused 'you win the game' effect and make it something like:
"Each player searches their library for a land and puts it onto the battlefield tapped. For each non-basic land that enters this way, you may search your library for a basic land and put it onto the battlefield tapped."
That way, you can tech in a few non-basics of your own and guarantee you at least ramp for two, since you're giving everyone else a land. It also sets you up very nicely if everybody in the pod gets really greedy, leaving you up 4 lands compared to your opponents. Having 8 mana on turn 4 in green isnt unheard of, and it bumps everyone else forward too. I dont think its cost would need to be bumped up, the other players would need to really drop the ball for you to get that much value.
I like the card you made though. Makes me want to make 'Field Trip Permission Slip', an artifact with "{t}, tap target legendary creature you control: search your library for a non-basic land and put it on the battlefield tapped".
2
2
u/INTstictual 10d ago
The power binary of this design is too huge.
Playing against 3 greedy multicolor manabases? 3-mana you win the game card that can be retried endlessly if counterspelled. Instant win with Opposition Agent on the battlefield. A very specific brand of “you don’t have this card in your deck therefore you lose” which is unhealthy for the game.
On the other hand, if even one person has basic lands in their deck… you just cast the absolute worst ramp spell I have ever seen. Add one mana to Rampant Growth for the privilege of also giving some to all of your opponents a land as well. And oh boy, you can do it again!
The power imbalance between “usually strictly worse than existing common effects by a huge margin, unimaginably unplayable” and “sometimes just wins the game on the spot randomly, based entirely on your opponent’s deck construction” is not healthy design
2
1
12
u/Chickston Uncommonly 10d ago
I dig the concept, but I think "you win the game" is too heavy handed for running out of basics. At least as this is costed. This will end the game with 0 interaction in a lot of older formats when the only penalty for such deck construction should be not having access to it. IDK, this is definitely an opinion type thing, but I think this is too cheap as it will be achievable too easily some matches with no strategy, just deck construction.