The First Glorious Snowfall Legendary Enchantment Land
: Add CC to your mana pool. Activate this ability only if you control a Snow permanent.
The first time you would add S to your mana pool each turn, you may add one mana of any color instead.
Hat Trick2 Artifact Snow Creature (Inspired by Mutant League Hockey)
The third time S would be added to your mana pool each turn, you may add 2 instead. Watch out! If you ever drop anything, it's going to take it and run with it. This includes anything else you might lose too if it bumps into you—like money or teeth.
3/1
"They say once you've lost your first item to the Hat Trick—it's time to move out of town. People are superstitious the third item it will take is your life."
Global Warming2S Enchantment
Destiny Bond (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, any player may shuffle his or her hand into his or her library and draw four cards.)
The first time an opponent would add S to his or her mana pool, that player adds C instead. Many were disturbed by the schemes of highlanders to disenthrone the tundra regions with warmth for their profits. It began a quest for balance—their restitution sought in blood, sweat, and tears.
Snow Tax Cycle
Effect — unless S was emptied from x player's mana pool this turn.
I want these to cost a single S mana - but by means in which it puts one of those 'color identity' markers next to the mana symbol - to identify that the snow mana must be produced by the corresponding snow land, or a land that also produces mana of that color.
Ba 1S Sorcery
Gain control of target artifact, creature, or land with a converted mana cost 5 or less unless S was emptied from an opponent's mana pool this turn. If that permanent isn't tapped, tap it. It doesn't untap during your next untap step.
Bi 1S Sorcery
Search your library for a nonbasic land card without a basic land type and a legendary land card unless S was emptied from an opponent's mana pool this turn. Put the nonbasic land card onto the battlefield tapped, then reveal the legendary land card and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
Bo1S Sorcery
Put target permanent on the top of it's owner's library second from the top unless S was emptied from its controllers mana pool this turn.
Bu 1S Sorcery
Target creature or planeswalker deals 5 damage to itself unless S was emptied from its controllers mana pool this turn.
Be 1S Sorcery
Put a 5/5 green Beast snow creature token onto the battlefield unless S was emptied from your opponent's mana pool this turn.
The All Father3GWU Legendary Creature — Avatar
Hexproof
Ignore the restrictions of spells and abilities requiring S to be emptied from player's mana pools.
The first time a snow permanent you control would be destroyed, exiled, or put into another zone each turn, it isn't instead. "I have not yet seen the horizon myself—although I have not lost faith. I know it is a fight that must remain in us all, to guide us through the twilight."
4/9
The First Glorious Snowfall, completely broken by the existence and prevalence of snow lands. Imagine if instead, you made a land that tapped for CC CIPT and only untapped if you had another land, it would be weaker than this land.
Hat Trick, other than occasionally tripping up a player because their colored mana turned colorless this is a neat design. The small chance for misplay is an acceptable burden.
Global Warming, the actual effect on this is awful but since you can play it as a 3 mana wheel it's actually quite above the curve powerwise.
Snow Tax, so you want colored snow symbols? I'm fairly certain they use them in the arena interface; it wouldn't a stretch to add them to the rules.
That said, what do YOU mean by "was emptied from x player's mana pool this turn" I know what it means in the context of the rules but that doesn't seem to be what you intended here.
The All Father, you didn't give this a cost. Considering how unreasonably difficult it would be for the second ability to matter it's not particularly relevant though it does hit the mark for flavorful trinket text. However, that third ability, it's a powerful one. Though as long as this is costed correctly it's perfectly reasonable. What are you thinking for a cost? 1 of each colored snow? Would be neat.
The First Glorious Snowfall, completely broken by the existence and prevalence of snow lands. Imagine if instead, you made a land that tapped for CC CIPT and only untapped if you had another land, it would be weaker than this land.
Hat Trick, other than occasionally tripping up a player because their colored mana turned colorless this is a neat design. The small chance for misplay is an acceptable burden.
Global Warming, the actual effect on this is awful but since you can play it as a 3 mana wheel it's actually quite above the curve powerwise.
Snow Tax, so you want colored snow symbols? I'm fairly certain they use them in the arena interface; it wouldn't a stretch to add them to the rules.
That said, what do YOU mean by "was emptied from x player's mana pool this turn" I know what it means in the context of the rules but that doesn't seem to be what you intended here.
The All Father, you didn't give this a cost. Considering how unreasonably difficult it would be for the second ability to matter it's not particularly relevant though it does hit the mark for flavorful trinket text. However, that third ability, it's a powerful one. Though as long as this is costed correctly it's perfectly reasonable. What are you thinking for a cost? 1 of each colored snow? Would be neat.
But what if lands can't produce more than a single mana?
I do understand the power level here. The original concept required two snow permanents and wanted to produce CS, but you can still tap down for 2, then play another copy, and then tap that one down for another 2. It's really evocative. Would be like $200 each! Requires you to play snow. Doesn't do anything on its own. Can't be fetched—giving you a 48% chance of pulling one in your opening (crooked mulligan rules aside). It provides a neat exchange mana ramp. If it only produced one mana, what's the difference from playing a land; other than being set back a permanent? I did want it to produce snow. But I don't want it to be able to enable itself to produce mana of any color (from its own effect). Otherwise, why not just have made it that effect to begin with? It wants to do something different, yet dynamic. And that's where the two mana snow pump comes from.
Hat Trick doesn't do that. Global Warming does. Hat Trick gives you an additional mana when you're tapping down for two Snow. This will give you 4 colorless mana, from which now you'll need a fourth land (or more—depending on how color heavy the spell); or you'll need a mana fixer, to cast colored spells.
I don't want to make colored snow symbols. I want to use the 'color identity' symbol to denote the colored requirement. If you're using colored snow symbols, you mine as well not have snow mana anymore. This adaptation is simply intended to create something 'new and dynamic' for the game; with force majeure; but isn't intended to become a standard of any kind (or to be used in other applications).
The Snow Tax Cycle is a unique concept that's intended to spook players into 'tapping down' a land/mana in advanced, to avoid the effects of these special spells. The effect of Global Warming then supplements this, by nullifying their first snow mana, now requiring them to 'tap down' a second land or mana to avoid the effects. The condition is fulfilled when a snow mana is emptied from a player's mana pool without having been spent. Effects like Upwelling, which prevent mana from being emptied from mana pools, will make it impossible for player's to fulfill this condition.
I am still pondering over the cost of The All Father, including the colors. I am thinking either mono-white—or like GWU—somewhere in the ballpark of 6CMC or 7CMC total.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the land because it sounds like you know it's overpowered but the entire point was to be overpowered? If that's the case, congratulations on creating an overpowered card.
Your response to hat trick makes it sound like you don't know what snow mana is or how replacement effects work. Hat Trick says that if you tap 3 snow-covered forests you end up with 2GG, all of which is snow. The problem I expressed was if you tap a Snow-covered Plains, a Snow-covered Mountain and a Snow-covered Forest you end up with your choice of 2RW, 2GW, 2RG or RGW depending on the order in which you tap your lands or if you chose not to use the ability. I hope this illustration thoroughly explains how snow mana works and how replacement effects work for this specific card. If you intended something different explain and we can help you get the right wording.
"I don't want to make colored snow symbols. I want to use the 'color identity' symbol to denote the colored requirement." This doesn't make sense. What do you think you are saying. Because what I think you are saying is what I said earlier and directly contradicting to the actual words but not intent of your sentence. To clarify I'll ask a specific question. You want Bu to cost only a single mana. You want that mana to be red. And you want that mana to come from a snow permanent. If any part of this is wrong or inaccurate please clarify.
As for the mechanics of your Snow Tax. It's unreasonably bad. Unless the effects are very strong or the player knows they have nothing to do with their mana they would never preemptively give up the resource. Also due to timing, they would have to do this in the upkeep which further pains this mechanic.
That looks good for The All Father. I would push the multicolor, GWU is a good combination if you want 3 otherwise GW if you want only 2.
So... if Bo/Bu/Be are intended to be Instants, they simply do not work.
Quote from The Comprehensive Rules »
500.3 A step in which no players receive priority ends when all specified actions that take place during that step are completed. The only such steps are the untap step (see rule 502) and certain cleanup steps (see rule 514).
500.4 When a step or phase ends, any unused mana left in a player’s mana pool empties. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
If I wait for the end of someone's upkeep (the first step in which mana could even be added to the mana pool), the opponent's mana will not have had a chance to drain by any means that turn (it only drains after everyone has had priority) and you will automatically get the effect.
If they are meant to be sorceries, they would only warp the game to the umpteenth degree by forcing players to tap a mana at the beginning of your upkeep for the entire game SIMPLY BY EXISTING. Compared with previous "rhystic" payoffs like Rhystic Tutor or Rhystic Lightning (Rhystic Study doens't really count as it can't "ambush" a player that tapped out), the benefits being gained for a single mana are immense... to the point where you would pay the tax to any opponent (whether or not they actually use the card) who play snow lands... meaning that you are forced to use snow lands if anyone else is using snow lands... and in that case, why not run these cards as well.
While common consensus might claim that favoring a basic mana base would disincentivize 3-5 color "good stuff" decks and promote deck diversity, I honestly feel that these cards would end up homogenizing formats instead as everyone would need to be using these cards and a snow mana base.
...All of which you might know, if you knew how the game was actually played.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the land because it sounds like you know it's overpowered but the entire point was to be overpowered? If that's the case, congratulations on creating an overpowered card.
Your response to hat trick makes it sound like you don't know what snow mana is or how replacement effects work. Hat Trick says that if you tap 3 snow-covered forests you end up with 2GG, all of which is snow. The problem I expressed was if you tap a Snow-covered Plains, a Snow-covered Mountain and a Snow-covered Forest you end up with your choice of 2RW, 2GW, 2RG or RGW depending on the order in which you tap your lands or if you chose not to use the ability. I hope this illustration thoroughly explains how snow mana works and how replacement effects work for this specific card. If you intended something different explain and we can help you get the right wording.
"I don't want to make colored snow symbols. I want to use the 'color identity' symbol to denote the colored requirement." This doesn't make sense. What do you think you are saying. Because what I think you are saying is what I said earlier and directly contradicting to the actual words but not intent of your sentence. To clarify I'll ask a specific question. You want Bu to cost only a single mana. You want that mana to be red. And you want that mana to come from a snow permanent. If any part of this is wrong or inaccurate please clarify.
As for the mechanics of your Snow Tax. It's unreasonably bad. Unless the effects are very strong or the player knows they have nothing to do with their mana they would never preemptively give up the resource. Also due to timing, they would have to do this in the upkeep which further pains this mechanic.
That looks good for The All Father. I would push the multicolor, GWU is a good combination if you want 3 otherwise GW if you want only 2.
Using The First Glorious Snowfall in a back-to-back play will cost you a land drop. It's powerful, but that's a hefty cost. I think it's just good.
The deal behind Hat Trick involves adapting that lands have to be tapped for S specifically. If it's tapped for colored mana, that's not a snow mana. If a land produces S specifically, that's not a colored mana.
By using the 'color identity' symbol, I mean like on the modern Wheel of Fate, only placed to the right of the snow mana symbol.
To me, Green is a color that represents primitiveness. It can also represent 'essential nature'; which means, 'a correspondence to an environment to survive or thrive within; by whatever means or adaptations necessary'. The following of—a law of the jungle—sorta say. Green-White would be an adaptation on that. I don't think it reflects the nature of The All Father well enough; or is astrayed from too much of the mythos/grandeur. It doesn't represent enough of the character for what it is suggesting, or leaving out. And that is why I say mono-White otherwise.
While common consensus might claim that favoring a basic mana base would disincentivize 3-5 color "good stuff" decks and promote deck diversity, I honestly feel that these cards would end up homogenizing formats instead as everyone would need to be using these cards and a snow mana base.
...All of which you might know, if you knew how the game was actually played.
I was on the board about making these instants, or any instants in this category. They are so powerful, and so cheap, I can't really see that in balance. They do potentially do nothing, and they would provoke players to tech snow covered basic lands in other formats (which isn't bad).
Still, once again, there are more creative ways to counter-balance this than simply rejecting the whole concept and all the play value or collector's value that comes with these designs.
They do potentially do nothing, and they would provoke players to tech snow covered basic lands in other formats (which isn't bad).
I kind of disagree with the notion that they do nothing, honestly.
1. If I have Be in my opening hand and I play a snow land, my opponent is either screwed (if they don't have a snow land) or they are being taxed for 1 mana at the start of each of my upkeeps until the opponent attempts to "go off" and win. I paid no mana and no cards to tax my opponent in this way but they are still inclined to pay the tax due to these cards existing in the metagame. It's true that having a second Be in my hand doesn't add to that advantage (similar to legendary creatures) but having a passive 1-mana tax that comes online turn 1 is NOT nothing.
2. Giving all of these cards a CMC of 1 seems to ignore the possibility of just casting Be on turn 1. A 5/5 on turn one that your opponent couldn't possibly negate seems a tad overpowered... unless your opponent is running a Be of their own to block or a Bo to bounce the token into oblivion... which gets back to the problem of these cards becoming ubiquitous and killing deck diversity. Anyone who doesn't tune their mana to snow and use BeBuBo would simply lose, meaning that everyone would run enough snow to ensure a turn 1 snow land and will be running enough BeBuBo to force each other to paying a tax of 1 each turn, making an archetype that renders all other archetypes unplayable while simultaneously having absolutely miserable mirror matches. This is not a desirable game-state.
I recommend increasing the CMC for those tax spells up to 3 (at least) so that non-snow decks have 1-2 turns of unimpeded play before snow starts becoming an issue, allowing for a wider variety of decks to flourish.
The deal behind Hat Trick involves adapting that lands have to be tapped for S specifically. If it's tapped for colored mana, that's not a snow mana. If a land produces S specifically, that's not a colored mana.
You seem to not understand how snow mana works. There are no permanents that say "T: Add S". Any colored or colorless mana that is generated by a Snow source can be used to pay costs that specify S as part of their cost, but if I tap a Tresserhorn Sinks I get either a R or B mana and that mana can pay for costs of either the corresponding color or costs that specify S, so it is both colored mana and snow mana at the same time.
By using the 'color identity' symbol, I mean like on the modern Wheel of Fate, only placed to the right of the snow mana symbol.
The color identity symbol has no impact on the spell's casting cost. In fact, that's the whole point of the symbol: to override the color defined by the printed cost. Your spell as written would be green, but castable with S of any color. For your card to actually work the way you want them to, the casting cost would have to be the one mana of the relevant color and the effect specify that S had been spent to cast it (a la Search for Glory).
Also, there's no reason to have the whole "emptied from the mana pool" thing; you can just tax them by making them pay a cost.
Be G
If S was spent to cast CARDNAME, put a 5/5 green Beast snow creature token onto the battlefield unless an opponent pays S.
Global Warming 2S
Enchantment
Destiny Bond (As you cast this spell, or when it resolves or leaves the stack, any player may shuffle his or her hand into his or her library and draw four cards.)
The first time an opponent would add S to his or her mana pool, that player adds C to his or her mana pool instead.
As I haven't had to give this reminder in a while, I'd thought you'd finally learned how wording conditional triggers works. I guess not, so here's the standard reminder that you spell will cause the caster to discard and draw twice - both on cast and resolution/countering - not one or the other. As an ability, there is no good reason to have an option to trigger on resolution or leaving the stack anyway, so leaving it off is better for both wording and simplicity.
I am suggesting adapting an isolation policy for snow mana. Snow lands can produce snow mana, in place of colored mana, and snow mana costs must be paid with snow mana, and can't be paid with generic or colored mana from snow sources. You aware?
I am also suggesting that the 'color identity' symbol when placed next to a snow mana symbol gains this meaning. It literally denotes that the 'snow mana' must be generated from a basic snow land of that basic type, or any snow land that produces that mana specifically.
Your suggestion for the snow tax cycle is missing the aspect of how it nerfs Mana Short/Power Sink type effects the way it's written. Not very relevant to modern, but very significant somewhere.
I was also thinking that an errata ruling could fix the snow issue abroad; something along the lines of: [Any lands that can produce mana of any color can also produce S]. If this ruling was adapted, players wouldn't have to tech snow lands to play abroad. They still won't count as snow permanents, but will allow snow costs to be paid. Kind of an 'artificial snow' rule.
I am suggesting adapting an isolation policy for snow mana. blah blah blah
Ah, so as usual you both assumed the right thing to do is re-write the comp rules and also not tell people that you were making that assumption, so that people would think you just don't understand how the game works. Got it.
I am suggesting adapting an isolation policy for snow mana. Snow lands can produce snow mana, in place of colored mana, and snow mana costs must be paid with snow mana, and can't be paid with generic or colored mana from snow sources. You aware?
Dude, you need to open with this. You made two posts before mentioning that you were changing snow into a sixth color and retrofitting all snow lands to be dual lands for this sixth color.
So now that you have elaborated on what you mean because as normal what you mean doesn't line up with what you say due to a fundamental difference between your thoughts and the rules. We can finally talk to eachother.
Hat Trick is now bad. It still ramps but it only works in colorless so its mediocre instead of interesting.
Global Warming is still laughably bad but since it wheels it will still be played.
Snow tax is still awful because as I said you either power them down to meaningless or buff them up to oppressive.
As far as adding a sixth color is concerned. This isn't the worst implementation. You didn't redistribute the color pie. You didn't create a one and done super parasitic existence. You just eversierated an existing mechanic. The idea is interesting "taking a mechanic and turning it into a color" but your specific execution is possibly the worst. None of your ideas on how to use this new color are useful as they are either awful or woefully overpowered.
They do potentially do nothing, and they would provoke players to tech snow covered basic lands in other formats (which isn't bad).
I kind of disagree with the notion that they do nothing, honestly.
1. If I have Be in my opening hand and I play a snow land, my opponent is either screwed (if they don't have a snow land) or they are being taxed for 1 mana at the start of each of my upkeeps until the opponent attempts to "go off" and win. I paid no mana and no cards to tax my opponent in this way but they are still inclined to pay the tax due to these cards existing in the metagame. It's true that having a second Be in my hand doesn't add to that advantage (similar to legendary creatures) but having a passive 1-mana tax that comes online turn 1 is NOT nothing.
2. Giving all of these cards a CMC of 1 seems to ignore the possibility of just casting Be on turn 1.
I wanted to finish the cycle before hammering out the final schematics. Please stand by on this.
It has been a notion to me from the start that these will likely may not be able to cost a single mana—no matter how much I would like to preserve that grace.
They do potentially do nothing, and they would provoke players to tech snow covered basic lands in other formats (which isn't bad).
I kind of disagree with the notion that they do nothing, honestly.
1. If I have Be in my opening hand and I play a snow land, my opponent is either screwed (if they don't have a snow land) or they are being taxed for 1 mana at the start of each of my upkeeps until the opponent attempts to "go off" and win. I paid no mana and no cards to tax my opponent in this way but they are still inclined to pay the tax due to these cards existing in the metagame. It's true that having a second Be in my hand doesn't add to that advantage (similar to legendary creatures) but having a passive 1-mana tax that comes online turn 1 is NOT nothing.
2. Giving all of these cards a CMC of 1 seems to ignore the possibility of just casting Be on turn 1.
I wanted to finish the cycle before hammering out the final schematics. Please stand by on this.
It has been a notion to me from the start that these will likely may not be able to cost a single mana—no matter how much I would like to preserve that grace.
Step 1: Think of card idea.
Step 2: Create card in entirety
Step 3: Share card idea.
This process isn't so hard. I have not seen anyone else on the thread struggle with this concept in the past. Before you share a card, develop the idea and write out the card. Instead of performing iteration on a half-finished idea, show us a "final product". That is how this forum works. I cannot make this concept much more simple.
Since you added to the first post without actually addressing the structural issue that mana is only "emptied" at the end of phases or when an ability specifically causes it to be (i.e. Power Sink). If you play these card on an upkeep step, you opponent will not have had an opportunity for mana to be emptied that turn and so cannot have paid the "tax". And regardless when you cast them, your opponent doesn't have a way to respond if they have not already proactively burned a mana this turn (in which case you just hold the card until you can cast them for their effect)
S Bi
Search your library for a nonbasic land card without a basic land type and a legendary land card unless S was emptied from an opponent's mana pool this turn. Put the nonbasic land card onto the battlefield tapped, then reveal the legendary land card and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
A one mana card that can find the Dark Depths/Thespian's Stage combo with no drawback is probably not a good idea.
S Bi
Search your library for a nonbasic land card without a basic land type and a legendary land card unless S was emptied from an opponent's mana pool this turn. Put the nonbasic land card onto the battlefield tapped, then reveal the legendary land card and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
A one mana card that can find the Dark Depths/Thespian's Stage combo with no drawback is probably not a good idea.
This actually opens up an interesting rules discussion.
I do believe that when a card becomes a copy of another card, it should also copy/trigger any 'As/When/This enters the battlefield' effects. Or it should at least copy all the counters that card has on it.
Also, such effects should be exempt from abilities that would interact with it, unless the effect explicitly states interaction with "As/When/This enters the battlefield effects". For example, Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider should not be able to interact with Etched Omen. As/When/This enters the battlefield effects are pre-emptive, and technically in place before it actually hits the battlefield; so there should be a void, that separates interactivity, and only allows effects that explicitly reference 'As/When/This dynamic' to interact on that medium.
This actually opens up an interesting rules discussion.
No. No it doesn't.
If this was the forum for proposing rules changes, sure. I recommend you go find that forum and post in it.
This is the forum for creating Magic cards that utilize the rules system of Magic the Gathering. Your card doesn't function as intended within the rules of the game you designed it for, therefore either you need to change it or it doesn't work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Legendary Enchantment Land
: Add CC to your mana pool. Activate this ability only if you control a Snow permanent.
The first time you would add S to your mana pool each turn, you may add one mana of any color instead.
Hat Trick 2
Artifact Snow Creature (Inspired by Mutant League Hockey)
The third time S would be added to your mana pool each turn, you may add 2 instead.
Watch out! If you ever drop anything, it's going to take it and run with it. This includes anything else you might lose too if it bumps into you—like money or teeth.
3/1
"They say once you've lost your first item to the Hat Trick—it's time to move out of town. People are superstitious the third item it will take is your life."
Global Warming 2S
Enchantment
Destiny Bond (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, any player may shuffle his or her hand into his or her library and draw four cards.)
The first time an opponent would add S to his or her mana pool, that player adds C instead.
Many were disturbed by the schemes of highlanders to disenthrone the tundra regions with warmth for their profits. It began a quest for balance—their restitution sought in blood, sweat, and tears.
Snow Tax Cycle
Effect — unless S was emptied from x player's mana pool this turn.
I want these to cost a single S mana - but by means in which it puts one of those 'color identity' markers next to the mana symbol - to identify that the snow mana must be produced by the corresponding snow land, or a land that also produces mana of that color.
Ba 1S
Sorcery
Gain control of target artifact, creature, or land with a converted mana cost 5 or less unless S was emptied from an opponent's mana pool this turn. If that permanent isn't tapped, tap it. It doesn't untap during your next untap step.
Bi 1S
Sorcery
Search your library for a nonbasic land card without a basic land type and a legendary land card unless S was emptied from an opponent's mana pool this turn. Put the nonbasic land card onto the battlefield tapped, then reveal the legendary land card and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
Bo1S
Sorcery
Put target permanent on the top of it's owner's library second from the top unless S was emptied from its controllers mana pool this turn.
Bu 1S
Sorcery
Target creature or planeswalker deals 5 damage to itself unless S was emptied from its controllers mana pool this turn.
Be 1S
Sorcery
Put a 5/5 green Beast snow creature token onto the battlefield unless S was emptied from your opponent's mana pool this turn.
The All Father 3GWU
Legendary Creature — Avatar
Hexproof
Ignore the restrictions of spells and abilities requiring S to be emptied from player's mana pools.
The first time a snow permanent you control would be destroyed, exiled, or put into another zone each turn, it isn't instead.
"I have not yet seen the horizon myself—although I have not lost faith. I know it is a fight that must remain in us all, to guide us through the twilight."
4/9
Hat Trick, other than occasionally tripping up a player because their colored mana turned colorless this is a neat design. The small chance for misplay is an acceptable burden.
Global Warming, the actual effect on this is awful but since you can play it as a 3 mana wheel it's actually quite above the curve powerwise.
Snow Tax, so you want colored snow symbols? I'm fairly certain they use them in the arena interface; it wouldn't a stretch to add them to the rules.
That said, what do YOU mean by "was emptied from x player's mana pool this turn" I know what it means in the context of the rules but that doesn't seem to be what you intended here.
The All Father, you didn't give this a cost. Considering how unreasonably difficult it would be for the second ability to matter it's not particularly relevant though it does hit the mark for flavorful trinket text. However, that third ability, it's a powerful one. Though as long as this is costed correctly it's perfectly reasonable. What are you thinking for a cost? 1 of each colored snow? Would be neat.
But what if lands can't produce more than a single mana?
I do understand the power level here. The original concept required two snow permanents and wanted to produce CS, but you can still tap down for 2, then play another copy, and then tap that one down for another 2. It's really evocative. Would be like $200 each! Requires you to play snow. Doesn't do anything on its own. Can't be fetched—giving you a 48% chance of pulling one in your opening (crooked mulligan rules aside). It provides a neat exchange mana ramp. If it only produced one mana, what's the difference from playing a land; other than being set back a permanent? I did want it to produce snow. But I don't want it to be able to enable itself to produce mana of any color (from its own effect). Otherwise, why not just have made it that effect to begin with? It wants to do something different, yet dynamic. And that's where the two mana snow pump comes from.
Hat Trick doesn't do that. Global Warming does. Hat Trick gives you an additional mana when you're tapping down for two Snow. This will give you 4 colorless mana, from which now you'll need a fourth land (or more—depending on how color heavy the spell); or you'll need a mana fixer, to cast colored spells.
I don't want to make colored snow symbols. I want to use the 'color identity' symbol to denote the colored requirement. If you're using colored snow symbols, you mine as well not have snow mana anymore. This adaptation is simply intended to create something 'new and dynamic' for the game; with force majeure; but isn't intended to become a standard of any kind (or to be used in other applications).
The Snow Tax Cycle is a unique concept that's intended to spook players into 'tapping down' a land/mana in advanced, to avoid the effects of these special spells. The effect of Global Warming then supplements this, by nullifying their first snow mana, now requiring them to 'tap down' a second land or mana to avoid the effects. The condition is fulfilled when a snow mana is emptied from a player's mana pool without having been spent. Effects like Upwelling, which prevent mana from being emptied from mana pools, will make it impossible for player's to fulfill this condition.
I am still pondering over the cost of The All Father, including the colors. I am thinking either mono-white—or like GWU—somewhere in the ballpark of 6CMC or 7CMC total.
Your response to hat trick makes it sound like you don't know what snow mana is or how replacement effects work. Hat Trick says that if you tap 3 snow-covered forests you end up with 2GG, all of which is snow. The problem I expressed was if you tap a Snow-covered Plains, a Snow-covered Mountain and a Snow-covered Forest you end up with your choice of 2RW, 2GW, 2RG or RGW depending on the order in which you tap your lands or if you chose not to use the ability. I hope this illustration thoroughly explains how snow mana works and how replacement effects work for this specific card. If you intended something different explain and we can help you get the right wording.
"I don't want to make colored snow symbols. I want to use the 'color identity' symbol to denote the colored requirement." This doesn't make sense. What do you think you are saying. Because what I think you are saying is what I said earlier and directly contradicting to the actual words but not intent of your sentence. To clarify I'll ask a specific question. You want Bu to cost only a single mana. You want that mana to be red. And you want that mana to come from a snow permanent. If any part of this is wrong or inaccurate please clarify.
As for the mechanics of your Snow Tax. It's unreasonably bad. Unless the effects are very strong or the player knows they have nothing to do with their mana they would never preemptively give up the resource. Also due to timing, they would have to do this in the upkeep which further pains this mechanic.
That looks good for The All Father. I would push the multicolor, GWU is a good combination if you want 3 otherwise GW if you want only 2.
If I wait for the end of someone's upkeep (the first step in which mana could even be added to the mana pool), the opponent's mana will not have had a chance to drain by any means that turn (it only drains after everyone has had priority) and you will automatically get the effect.
If they are meant to be sorceries, they would only warp the game to the umpteenth degree by forcing players to tap a mana at the beginning of your upkeep for the entire game SIMPLY BY EXISTING. Compared with previous "rhystic" payoffs like Rhystic Tutor or Rhystic Lightning (Rhystic Study doens't really count as it can't "ambush" a player that tapped out), the benefits being gained for a single mana are immense... to the point where you would pay the tax to any opponent (whether or not they actually use the card) who play snow lands... meaning that you are forced to use snow lands if anyone else is using snow lands... and in that case, why not run these cards as well.
While common consensus might claim that favoring a basic mana base would disincentivize 3-5 color "good stuff" decks and promote deck diversity, I honestly feel that these cards would end up homogenizing formats instead as everyone would need to be using these cards and a snow mana base.
...All of which you might know, if you knew how the game was actually played.
Using The First Glorious Snowfall in a back-to-back play will cost you a land drop. It's powerful, but that's a hefty cost. I think it's just good.
The deal behind Hat Trick involves adapting that lands have to be tapped for S specifically. If it's tapped for colored mana, that's not a snow mana. If a land produces S specifically, that's not a colored mana.
By using the 'color identity' symbol, I mean like on the modern Wheel of Fate, only placed to the right of the snow mana symbol.
To me, Green is a color that represents primitiveness. It can also represent 'essential nature'; which means, 'a correspondence to an environment to survive or thrive within; by whatever means or adaptations necessary'. The following of—a law of the jungle—sorta say. Green-White would be an adaptation on that. I don't think it reflects the nature of The All Father well enough; or is astrayed from too much of the mythos/grandeur. It doesn't represent enough of the character for what it is suggesting, or leaving out. And that is why I say mono-White otherwise.
I was on the board about making these instants, or any instants in this category. They are so powerful, and so cheap, I can't really see that in balance. They do potentially do nothing, and they would provoke players to tech snow covered basic lands in other formats (which isn't bad).
Still, once again, there are more creative ways to counter-balance this than simply rejecting the whole concept and all the play value or collector's value that comes with these designs.
I kind of disagree with the notion that they do nothing, honestly.
1. If I have Be in my opening hand and I play a snow land, my opponent is either screwed (if they don't have a snow land) or they are being taxed for 1 mana at the start of each of my upkeeps until the opponent attempts to "go off" and win. I paid no mana and no cards to tax my opponent in this way but they are still inclined to pay the tax due to these cards existing in the metagame. It's true that having a second Be in my hand doesn't add to that advantage (similar to legendary creatures) but having a passive 1-mana tax that comes online turn 1 is NOT nothing.
2. Giving all of these cards a CMC of 1 seems to ignore the possibility of just casting Be on turn 1. A 5/5 on turn one that your opponent couldn't possibly negate seems a tad overpowered... unless your opponent is running a Be of their own to block or a Bo to bounce the token into oblivion... which gets back to the problem of these cards becoming ubiquitous and killing deck diversity. Anyone who doesn't tune their mana to snow and use BeBuBo would simply lose, meaning that everyone would run enough snow to ensure a turn 1 snow land and will be running enough BeBuBo to force each other to paying a tax of 1 each turn, making an archetype that renders all other archetypes unplayable while simultaneously having absolutely miserable mirror matches. This is not a desirable game-state.
I recommend increasing the CMC for those tax spells up to 3 (at least) so that non-snow decks have 1-2 turns of unimpeded play before snow starts becoming an issue, allowing for a wider variety of decks to flourish.
You seem to not understand how snow mana works. There are no permanents that say "T: Add S". Any colored or colorless mana that is generated by a Snow source can be used to pay costs that specify S as part of their cost, but if I tap a Tresserhorn Sinks I get either a R or B mana and that mana can pay for costs of either the corresponding color or costs that specify S, so it is both colored mana and snow mana at the same time.
The color identity symbol has no impact on the spell's casting cost. In fact, that's the whole point of the symbol: to override the color defined by the printed cost. Your spell as written would be green, but castable with S of any color. For your card to actually work the way you want them to, the casting cost would have to be the one mana of the relevant color and the effect specify that S had been spent to cast it (a la Search for Glory).
Also, there's no reason to have the whole "emptied from the mana pool" thing; you can just tax them by making them pay a cost.
Be G
If S was spent to cast CARDNAME, put a 5/5 green Beast snow creature token onto the battlefield unless an opponent pays S.
As I haven't had to give this reminder in a while, I'd thought you'd finally learned how wording conditional triggers works. I guess not, so here's the standard reminder that you spell will cause the caster to discard and draw twice - both on cast and resolution/countering - not one or the other. As an ability, there is no good reason to have an option to trigger on resolution or leaving the stack anyway, so leaving it off is better for both wording and simplicity.
I am also suggesting that the 'color identity' symbol when placed next to a snow mana symbol gains this meaning. It literally denotes that the 'snow mana' must be generated from a basic snow land of that basic type, or any snow land that produces that mana specifically.
Your suggestion for the snow tax cycle is missing the aspect of how it nerfs Mana Short/Power Sink type effects the way it's written. Not very relevant to modern, but very significant somewhere.
I was also thinking that an errata ruling could fix the snow issue abroad; something along the lines of: [Any lands that can produce mana of any color can also produce S]. If this ruling was adapted, players wouldn't have to tech snow lands to play abroad. They still won't count as snow permanents, but will allow snow costs to be paid. Kind of an 'artificial snow' rule.
Ah, so as usual you both assumed the right thing to do is re-write the comp rules and also not tell people that you were making that assumption, so that people would think you just don't understand how the game works. Got it.
So now that you have elaborated on what you mean because as normal what you mean doesn't line up with what you say due to a fundamental difference between your thoughts and the rules. We can finally talk to eachother.
Hat Trick is now bad. It still ramps but it only works in colorless so its mediocre instead of interesting.
Global Warming is still laughably bad but since it wheels it will still be played.
Snow tax is still awful because as I said you either power them down to meaningless or buff them up to oppressive.
As far as adding a sixth color is concerned. This isn't the worst implementation. You didn't redistribute the color pie. You didn't create a one and done super parasitic existence. You just eversierated an existing mechanic. The idea is interesting "taking a mechanic and turning it into a color" but your specific execution is possibly the worst. None of your ideas on how to use this new color are useful as they are either awful or woefully overpowered.
I wanted to finish the cycle before hammering out the final schematics. Please stand by on this.
It has been a notion to me from the start that these will likely may not be able to cost a single mana—no matter how much I would like to preserve that grace.
You should probably explain something with that image as apparently some of us aren't allowed to post only images.
I'm almost through the deliberation process. I'm not finding it's too wordy to explain mana spent doesn't count as emptied.
This goes against my principals for coherence, but the rules do note explicitly mana for spells is 'spent' and mana removed unspent is 'emptied'.
If only this could be enough and responsible.
Step 1: Think of card idea.
Step 2: Create card in entirety
Step 3: Share card idea.
This process isn't so hard. I have not seen anyone else on the thread struggle with this concept in the past. Before you share a card, develop the idea and write out the card. Instead of performing iteration on a half-finished idea, show us a "final product". That is how this forum works. I cannot make this concept much more simple.
A one mana card that can find the Dark Depths/Thespian's Stage combo with no drawback is probably not a good idea.
This actually opens up an interesting rules discussion.
I do believe that when a card becomes a copy of another card, it should also copy/trigger any 'As/When/This enters the battlefield' effects. Or it should at least copy all the counters that card has on it.
Also, such effects should be exempt from abilities that would interact with it, unless the effect explicitly states interaction with "As/When/This enters the battlefield effects". For example, Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider should not be able to interact with Etched Omen. As/When/This enters the battlefield effects are pre-emptive, and technically in place before it actually hits the battlefield; so there should be a void, that separates interactivity, and only allows effects that explicitly reference 'As/When/This dynamic' to interact on that medium.
No. No it doesn't.
If this was the forum for proposing rules changes, sure. I recommend you go find that forum and post in it.
This is the forum for creating Magic cards that utilize the rules system of Magic the Gathering. Your card doesn't function as intended within the rules of the game you designed it for, therefore either you need to change it or it doesn't work.