Cycle of gemstones (artifact mana)

[Marco]

Carnelian Gemstone
1
Artifact
Carnelian Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Carnelian Gemstone: Add R to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Carnelian Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Onyx Gemstone
1
Artifact
Onyx Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Onyx Gemstone: Add B to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Onyx Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Opal Gemstone
1
Artifact
Opal Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Opal Gemstone: Add W to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Opal Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Peridot Gemstone
1
Artifact
Peridot Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Peridot Gemstone: Add G to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Peridot Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Tanzanite Gemstone
1
Artifact
Tanzanite Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Tanzanite Gemstone: Add U to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Tanzanite Gemstone, sacrifice it.

I'm not 100% happy with the names (especially Carnelian). I would have went with Emerald/Jet/Pearl/Ruby/Sapphire, but "Jet Gemstone" doesn't sound right to me.

[Marco]

Current Wording:

Garnet Gemstone
1
Artifact -- Treasure
Garnet Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Garnet Gemstone: Add R to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Garnet Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Onyx Gemstone
1
Artifact -- Treasure
Onyx Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Onyx Gemstone: Add B to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Onyx Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Opal Gemstone
1
Artifact -- Treasure
Opal Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Opal Gemstone: Add W to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Opal Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Peridot Gemstone
1
Artifact -- Treasure
Peridot Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Peridot Gemstone: Add G to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Peridot Gemstone, sacrifice it.

Tanzanite Gemstone
1
Artifact -- Treasure
Tanzanite Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it.
Tap, Remove a depletion counter from Tanzanite Gemstone: Add U to your mana pool. If there are no depletion counters on Tanzanite Gemstone, sacrifice it.

[Ephraim]

I know that in the past, the idea of "half of a Sol Ring" has been shut down. That is, for an artifact that taps for . It's been concluded that it's savage acceleration. The question this raises then is whether the depletion counters (they should probably be charge counters) are a sufficient drawback to balance the fact that this is "half of a Sol Ring" that can furthermore generate coloured mana. (Nice job on the names, by the way. Good association with each colour without re-using gem names from the past.) I'm not really sure, myself, but if these get shot down for power reasons, you can try condensing them into a single card:

Quartz Gemstone

Artifact

Quartz Gemstone comes into play with 2 charge counters on it.
, Remove a charge counter from Quartz Gemstone: Add to your mana pool. If there are no charge counters on Quartz Gemstone, sacrifice it.

[Jacob Orlove]

With just two counters, these are probably fair. I'd still be a little worried that decks could play huge numbers of them, though.

Here's a question--how do these compare to Pentad Prism?

[stolen]

Pentad Prism isn't a tapping effect, so you can play it for two and empty it next turn.  On the other hand, it does act exactly like a Pentad Prism would if the CC were 1, with the added benefit that it can be used twice.  These are too powerful as is.

You could make these CIPT.  I do think that they're a bit too much as is.  But cool idea, really.

EDIT: Although I'm not sure if CIPT would make a difference, because effectively that only means that you cannot use them as mana converters the first turn.  Up the CC to , maybe?  But then that's like those pain artifacts from whatever that set was (Mirrodin?  The {2}CC cycle that could tap for one colorless or one of two allied colors with pain).  I really don't know what you could do with these; they'll either be too weak or two strong.  Unless you can think of a creative drawback.

[Marco]

I changed the red Gemstone to Garnet Gemstone. I am happy with the card names now.

Ephraim: I'm not against making the counters charge counters rather than depletion counters, but I would like to hear your reasoning.

I'd really like to keep these as a cycle. (My last cycle was reduced to one card.)

I could make these Legendary Artifacts to keep them the way they are and prevent them from being abused in multiples?

I don't think a casting cost of 2 would work at all. I could make these come into play tapped, maybe, but then I'd almost want to make the casting cost 0.

[Laurie Cheers]

Actually I think these are pretty weak.
You're laundering 1 into a (specific) colored mana on the turn you cast it, and then generating another colored mana the turn after. That's the same amount of acceleration as Elvish Spirit Guide, but it takes an extra turn and you need mana to set it up in the first place.

Consider this version:

Garnet Gemstone
0
Artifact
Garnet Gemstone comes into play tapped.
T, Sacrifice Garnet Gemstone: Add R to your mana pool.

Is that playable? I don't think so. And that's essentially the same card, except you don't get the (weak, possibly inconvenient) mana laundering effect.

I think they should start out with 3 depletion counters, or produce more than one colour.

[Upinthe]

Consider this version:

Garnet Gemstone
0
Artifact
Garnet Gemstone comes into play tapped.
T, Sacrifice Garnet Gemstone: Add R to your mana pool.

Is that playable?

Yes, it is.  Maybe not in Type 1, but I have no doubt that if that card existed I could find a good home for it.

[Marco]

Ah, I love it when one person thinks a card is too strong and another person thinks the same card is too weak...

[Laurie Cheers]

Playable? Are you serious? It's the kind of card that would get "interviewed about why it's unplayable" on Misetings...

[Marco]

I don't want to make them come into play tapped because "Garnet Gemstone comes into play tapped" and "Garnet Gemstone comes into play with two depletion counters on it" on the same card (a card that already has a lot of text) looks too clunky. And coming into play tapped kinda sucks, even with a casting cost of 0.

I don't really want to make these Legendary Artifacts as they aren't very legendary.

I would like to give them three depletion counters, but that would make them more powerful and more unbalanced (arguably). And then I would really need to make them come into play tapped or be legendary or something, which I don't want to do.

So the question still remains: are these too good (or too weak) as is?

[Jacob Orlove]

These are like CIP tapped Lotus Petals, except you can run a bazillion. Then again, CIP tapped is a strong drawback for mana acceleration. I still think these are at about the right power level, but I'm concerned that people can run 8 or 12--these are essentially guaranteed to come down turn 1.

The problem with that is that Wizards still likes to make combo decks--just not ones that are too fast. With all this one-shot mana aceleration, all other combo parts for three blocks would have to be weaker than they otherwise could be, to keep the deck from winning unacceptably early.

[Marco]

So... 24 hour clock on these babies?

[Lego_Army_Man]

They would read "~ comes into play tapped with 2 depletion counters on it."

Check out Hickory Woodlot for an example.

[Bram]

I don't want to make them come into play tapped

That's not what Laurie meant, though. He was simply giving you another way of looking at the card you created. His version is indeed functionally almost identical to yours (expcet for the fact that it's strictly better, since it's a 0cc artifact (storm) and that it sort of implies you found always find a way to use the first mana from your version).

Is that playable? I don't think so.

That's not the point. The question should be (and I think the comparison with your version does indeed simplify matters a little) if it is distorting or not. Answer: no, it isn't. It creates card disadvantage (as most if not all accellerants do on their own) and more to the point: the tempo effect is negligable.

I do however feel these should be artifact -- treasure

Other than that, I think these are fine. Not as weak as some of you seem to think, and not as strong as others do, either.

[Marco]

As a nod to Matt, I have no problem with making these Artifact - Treasure.

[Matt]

Yay! I think Treasure might be a major theme of the second TMD set (I have LOTS of ideas for this).

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]