Strip Mine?

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

CARD NAME
Land
T: Add one colorless mana to your mana pool.
T, Sacrifice CARD NAME: Destroy target enchantment with converted mana cost 3 or less.

[walkingdude]

Black can't do this. This card is a uncounterable way to break the color pie.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

Black can't do this. This card is a uncounterable way to break the color pie.

So were Strip Mine, Wasteland, Zuran Orb, Dustbowl, Crucible of Worlds, etc.

[Ephraim]

Land Destruction has been all over the place, though. Green, black, and red have had plenty of land killers. White had Armageddon and other global land killers. Blue got...Okay, Erosion is all blue ever got. At any rate, four of the five colours had ways of destroying lands even back when Strip Mine was first printed. On the other hand, black has never had a way of dealing with enchantments. Nor, for that matter, has red; and blue can only deal with them with countermagic.

For another matter, land destruction has never proven to be a terribly feasible deck archetype. Nor have lands typically been so game-breaking that having or lacking a means to destroy them has really made a colour superiour. The fact of blue's inability to deal with lands is not particularly relevant.
On the other hand, artifacts and enchantments often have game-breaking effects and it is a fundamental weakness of black's that it is unable to deal with them.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

Land Destruction has been all over the place, though. Green, black, and red have had plenty of land killers. White had Armageddon and other global land killers. Blue got...Okay, Erosion is all blue ever got. At any rate, four of the five colours had ways of destroying lands even back when Strip Mine was first printed. On the other hand, black has never had a way of dealing with enchantments. Nor, for that matter, has red; and blue can only deal with them with countermagic.

For another matter, land destruction has never proven to be a terribly feasible deck archetype. Nor have lands typically been so game-breaking that having or lacking a means to destroy them has really made a colour superiour. The fact of blue's inability to deal with lands is not particularly relevant.
On the other hand, artifacts and enchantments often have game-breaking effects and it is a fundamental weakness of black's that it is unable to deal with them.

The game breaking enchantments often have casting costs greater than 3, which means black can make them be discarded first.

[Jacob Orlove]

Was this specifically to hose Oath, or what?

This card needs either a white or a green activation cost.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

Was this specifically to hose Oath, or what?

This card needs either a white or a green activation cost.

You caught me.

I think the activation cost will kill the card's usefulness.

[stolen]

Nor have lands typically been so game-breaking that having or lacking a means to destroy them has really made a colour superiour.

Lands have never been game-breaking?  LoA?  Workshop?  Bazaar?  The only reason that has never unbalanced the colors is the existance of Wasteland/Strip Mine.

This, however, is just too much.  Enchantments can be destroyed by White, and they can be destroyed by Green.  That's it.  Giving Red and Black an easy, uncounterable way to destroy lands is just too much, especially when it also is a land that produces mana, making it never dead.  Though I do like the idea of having a card that completely hoses Oath and SotF, this violates the color pie far too much.

Use Jacob's suggestion, or something similar.  Maybe, ", Sacrifice {this} and a plains/forest:"

The game breaking enchantments often have casting costs greater than 3

This allows Sligh/Gobbos/Burn to have four free and easy ways to destroy Pariah, Solitary Confiment, Propaganda, and Ghostly Prison, four cards that otherwise make the match essentially unwinnable.  And that's just off the top of my head because I play 3W.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

This, however, is just too much.  Enchantments can be destroyed by White, and they can be destroyed by Green.  That's it.  Giving Red and Black an easy, uncounterable way to destroy lands is just too much, especially when it also is a land that produces mana, making it never dead.  Though I do like the idea of having a card that completely hoses Oath and SotF, this violates the color pie far too much.

Use Jacob's suggestion, or something similar.  Maybe, ", Sacrifice {this} and a plains/forest:"

The game breaking enchantments often have casting costs greater than 3

This allows Sligh/Gobbos/Burn to have four free and easy ways to destroy Pariah, Solitary Confiment, Propaganda, and Ghostly Prison, four cards that otherwise make the match essentially unwinnable.  And that's just off the top of my head because I play 3W.

But just because traditionaly they lose to those cards, does that make it fair? MonoBlack and MonoRed aren't viable for those very reasons. One card isn't going to break a format in half, especially one that is basically "now I have a chance versus control".

[Necrologia]

But just because traditionaly they lose to those cards, does that make it fair? MonoBlack and MonoRed aren't viable for those very reasons. One card isn't going to break a format in half, especially one that is basically "now I have a chance versus control".

Would you agree with printing this then?

WW
Instant
Counter target spell.

It might give mono-white a chance, but it's never going to see print. The color wheel is there so that there's a reason to play one color over another. What you're suggesting is that every color should have access to everything. Ever play Warcraft II? Both sides were exactly the same, the units were just renamed. I don't want Magic to turn into that, and I don't think anyone else does either.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

But just because traditionaly they lose to those cards, does that make it fair? MonoBlack and MonoRed aren't viable for those very reasons. One card isn't going to break a format in half, especially one that is basically "now I have a chance versus control".

Would you agree with printing this then?

WW
Instant
Counter target spell.

It might give mono-white a chance, but it's never going to see print. The color wheel is there so that there's a reason to play one color over another. What you're suggesting is that every color should have access to everything. Ever play Warcraft II? Both sides were exactly the same, the units were just renamed. I don't want Magic to turn into that, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Thats very different. White can destory creatures, lands, artifacts, and enchantments. Is it just me, or is that every kind of permenant possible?

I'm a strong believer that Parfait can be good when brought into the right metagame. Especially now, after the decline in Null Rods. MonoWhite is viable.

However, Sligh and Sui have absolulty no chance after certain enchantmens are played. Is that fair?

[Norm4eva]

But just because traditionaly they lose to those cards, does that make it fair? MonoBlack and MonoRed aren't viable for those very reasons. One card isn't going to break a format in half, especially one that is basically "now I have a chance versus control".

Would you agree with printing this then?

WW
Instant
Counter target spell.

It might give mono-white a chance, but it's never going to see print. The color wheel is there so that there's a reason to play one color over another. What you're suggesting is that every color should have access to everything. Ever play Warcraft II? Both sides were exactly the same, the units were just renamed. I don't want Magic to turn into that, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Thats very different. White can destory creatures, lands, artifacts, and enchantments. Is it just me, or is that every kind of permenant possible?

I'm a strong believer that Parfait can be good when brought into the right metagame. Especially now, after the decline in Null Rods. MonoWhite is viable.

However, Sligh and Sui have absolulty no chance after certain enchantmens are played. Is that fair?

Of course it's fair.  That's why it's called 'an answer'.  You have to remember, a deck full of silver bullets is just that.  Random.dec will punish the hell out of a deck full of metagame answers.  It may not get very far vs. anything else, but that's the breaks.
You also have to remember; White destroys lands en masse, it destroys creatures with benefit to the controller (or it waits until they attack/block, as White sets the rules for combat), it destroys enchantments because it deals with enchantments most successfully, and the artifact destruction is rotating out.  Green has Desert Twister, a 6cc spell that destroys target PERMANENT.  Should green receive more creature kill, then?
The colors must have inherent weaknesses to have inherent strengths.  That's all there is to it.  There's no real problem with your card, but adding a white/green activation cost would make it closer to perfect.

[walkingdude]

Even color wheel issues aside I think this is still very good, and perhaps too good for a land. Lands are uncounterable and are hard to destroy in Type 2 where you can’t just throw a free set of wastes in every mono or 2 color deck. The effects that lands generate should tend to be fairly weak. Enchantment removal is a very powerful effect. This also creates a design constraint in that decks based around enchantments will have a tough time being strong or even viable with something like this around.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

For non-T1 reasons, would this be more fair:

CARD NAME
Land
T: Add one colorless mana to your mana pool.
1, T, Sacrifice CARD NAME: Destroy target enchantment with converted mana cost 2 or less.

[Jacob Orlove]

It still needs to require either green or white mana, and even then it's probably too strong.

You cannot make a colorless card that destroys enchantments. That's just not how magic works.

[Matt]

Fair has nothing to do with it. You could make the activation cost be 7 and it come into play tapped and you have to sacrifice a creature too, and it still would be unprintable.

[Norm4eva]

Fair has nothing to do with it. You could make the activation cost be 7 and it come into play tapped and you have to sacrifice a creature too, and it still would be unprintable.

All too true.  Remember the lands from Odyssey?  Barbarian Ring, Cephalid Collesium, etc.... all of them had colored activation costs.  There's nothing wrong with the notion at all.  Hell, maybe you could make another cycle of lands with this in mind.  Give this one a colored activation cost. *nod*

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

CARDNAME
Land
T: Add W to your mana pool.
G, T, Sacrifice CARDNAME: Destroy target enchanment with converted manacost 3 or less.

Fixed?

[stolen]

Nope.  Strictly better than plains.  Also it's cheap, uncounterable enchantment destruction that gives mana while it's waiting to be used.

The main flaw, and what makes it unprintable, is that it's strictly better than a plains, so it needs to CIPT or pain or something like that.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

CARDNAME
Land
T: Add W or G to your mana pool. CARDNAME deals 3 damage to you.
WG, T, Sacrifice CARDNAME: Destroy target enchanment.

3 damage is alot, in 7 turns you can die from it.

[Norm4eva]

It doesn't have to be 3 damage.  Painlands tap for colorless without pain and your version doesn't; there's no reason it shouldn't just deal 1 damage.
What is the current state of Type 2 anyway?  If enchantments are kind of a big deal this might be a little too good.  I know Extended and beyond can probably handle this, what with Bind/Stifle/other bad cards...

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

Treetop Monastery
Land
T: Add W or G to your mana pool. Treetop Monastery deals 1 damage to you.
WG, T, Sacrifice Treetop Monastery: Destroy target enchanment.

I'm thinking it might be more in flavor for this:

Treetop Monastery
Land
T: Add W or G to your mana pool. Target opponet gains 1 life.
WG, T, Sacrifice Treetop Monastery: Destroy target enchanment.

[Jacob Orlove]

Now it's a dual land, too? Why?

[Necrologia]

That second version is better than a dual land. The opponent gaining a single life isn't even enough of a drawback for the color fixing. Tack on the destroy target enchantment bit and it's ridiculous.

Not that the first version is much better. 1 point of life for some color fixing is fine, but the enchantment ability still throws it way way overboard.

[CaptainPlanet.dec]

That second version is better than a dual land. The opponent gaining a single life isn't even enough of a drawback for the color fixing. Tack on the destroy target enchantment bit and it's ridiculous.

Not that the first version is much better. 1 point of life for some color fixing is fine, but the enchantment ability still throws it way way overboard.

So should I keep it at 3 damage? I thought the card would be flavorful with the G and W combined with the name and ability.

[stolen]

CARDNAME
Land
CARDNAME comes into play tapped.
: Add to your mana pool.
{G}{G}, :  Sacrifice CARDNAME and destroy target enchantment.

That's my idea anyway.  There's really no reason that this should produce both colors of mana.  The above allows it to still use both enchantment-destroying colors, but without producing both and without being strictly better than a basic land.

[Upinthe]

CARDNAME
Land
CARDNAME comes into play tapped.
: Add to your mana pool.
{G}{G}, :  Sacrifice CARDNAME and destroy target enchantment.

That's my idea anyway.  There's really no reason that this should produce both colors of mana.  The above allows it to still use both enchantment-destroying colors, but without producing both and without being strictly better than a basic land.

Who would want to play with that? In two color decks cip tapped lands really suck unless they produce both colors of mana, and even then they aren't very good. A heavy green deck isn't going to want a slow land that doesn't even produce its primary color.

I don't like the general card at all. In the end, too many drawbacks will have to be tacked onto it, and it will be a mess.