Vegetation of Stone

[Odern420]

Vegetation of Stone
RG
Sorcery -- Gold
Destroy target land.

LD is by far my favortie deck to play. I have had just about every conceivable version of a LD deck you could think of and this is one card that i would LOVE to see printed. I think the fact that its gold makes the 2 cc balanced, and i didn't get greedy i didn't try to give anything else. I could actually see this card get print because LD is not competitive in Meta-game anymore so, a Sinkhole would be nice .

Vegetation of Stone
RG
Sorcery
Destroy target land. At the end of your turn, you must return a land card to the top of your library. If you can not, then you lose 5 life.

OK.......... I added a draw back that i think weighs down the power of this card sufficently. It slows down your mana if you try to play it 1st or 2nd turn. Dang it.... I'm determined to get my RG LD card ! lol



Vegetation of Stone
RG
Sorcery
Destroy target land and discard 2 cards at random.

OKOK.... how about this, balanced enough for you ?


Vegetation of Stone
RG
Sorcery
Destroy target non-basic land, its controller loses 2 life.


Grrrrr....... i really wanted my "any land" card but you guys drive a hard bargin sooooo....... here is an edit with non-basic in mind... I'm sure your gonna say the 2 life is to much..... but honestly... this is NOT  a sinkhole, and the multi color cc makes it harder to cast, and since it only target non-basics, there are gonna be games where you cant use it and it will just take up space in your deck, soooo the 2 life makes it more desireable to me.



Vegetation of Stone
RG
Sorcery
Kicker 1
Destroy target non-basic land.
If the Kicker cost is paid, you may destroy any target land.


OK.... after reviewing the comments left, I do liek the idea of the kicker cost. And it is stil generally a non-basic, but lets see how people react to this cards kicker. This makes any land at 3cc, and both red and green have at least 3 cards at 3cc that pop a land.


[EDIT] Removed sorcery subtype 'gold'


Odern420: I know you PM'ed me about this, so I must not have explained it well; I apologise for that. We're not angry in any way (hence blue text instead of red), but please take a minute to look at the changes I made to your post, so that it is in compliance with our standards. If you ever change anything to the card, please put it down in a list like I have done so for you (I removed the 'gold' subtype from your card type line). Welcome to the CC forum and have fun!  - Bram

[asmoranomardicodais]

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but recreating sinkhole might be a bad idea.

[Matt]

Sinkhole is WAY too good. The reason land destruction hasn't been awesome of late is because they don't print this kind of overpowered landkill anymore. This is also kind of boring - its effect is totally basic, the only interesting thing about it is the casting cost.

Players also hate land destruction more than anything else. More than discard, more than counterspells, more than combo decks. It's incredibly unfun for the game as a whole. Land destruction cards need to exist as a foil for certain strategies but it shouldn't ever (or only very, very rarely) be a strategy in and of itself.

[dandan]

I think this is do-able if you make it 'Destroy target non-basic land'. Lava Blister cost 1R and destroyed a non-basic occasionally or did 6 to the dome. GR would seem reasonable for a more peaceful version.

[Matt]

Yes, nonbasic would be doable.

[Odern420]

This is just a card i would love for my type 1 deck. I know how boring LD is to play against, but its so much fun to play once it gets rolling hehe  ...... i understand a 2cc LD card is pretty powerful but do you not think the 2 color aspect makes up for that ? It wont always be a second turn drop.

[Machinus]

This isn't as scary as crucible lock, so I think it's fine.

[dandan]

In Vintage, the non-basic drawback isn't that big a drawback. I would have a few reservations about a 2cc LD spell without any drawback apart from the CC.

[Shadow-Walker]

Multi-color isnt much of a drawback when its in color for most (non-vintage) land descruction decks.  I think at 2RG maybe destroy two target non-basics?

Ooh, or how about "Each player sacrifes a land, then each player who sacrificed a non-basic land sacrifices another land."  for around 1RG?

Merged comments. Please don't double post.  - Bram

[Matt]

Ooh, or how about "Each player sacrifes a land, then each player who sacrificed a non-basic land sacrifices another land."  for around 1RG?

See, now this is much more interesting than a plain old Stone Rain effect, because you can use it with something like God's Eye, Gate to the Reito or Crucible of Worlds to get maximum impact.

[BurningIce]

Thing is though, Sinkhole is so good because it's black and black has access to Dark Ritual.  So you can do things like first turn Sinkhole/Hymn with a land and a Mox.  Were Sinkhole any other cost whether it be GG or RR, it would be worse, but you'd still be able to Lotus it out.  This card requires 2 colors of mana, and therefore I think it's alright.  Hull Breach has the same cc and destroys two permanents after all.

[asmoranomardicodais]

But the main problem is that wizards has stated that land destruction should never be so good as to make it viable for a deck-type ever again. Also, they have only given red recently the three mana land destruction, while the other colors get four cc land at best. I would have no problem putting this at three with an extra effect, but its too dangerous to even think of land destruciton at two mana, because you can foil your opponent's strategy before they get more than one land out. Wizards wants to make sure that even if a land destruction deck were to come into existence, the opponent would be able to at best play something second turn before they lost their lands, like the second turn counterspell (so opponents can play something under the counterspell wall before draw-go gets up and running.)

All in all, even if there is a possibility that this might be fair in some way, two mana land destruction is just too dangerous to consider, no matter how fair the card looks.

[Odern420]

  Also, they have only given red recently the three mana land destruction, while the other colors get four cc land at best.

Ummm...... Red has had Stone Rain since Alpha, and Pillage since Alliances.... both cost 3, how is that recent ? It also got Raze in the Urza block..... And most the other GOOD LD cards in Black and Green are 3cc...... Black has 4 LD cards at 3cc, and green has 3 cards at 3cc....... you must never play type 1 or dont pay attention to older sets. Also i thought the whole idea of Magic was to foil your oppents strategy in order to win ? I mean a card like this in type 1 would not make that big of a difference, it would just be fun. Almost all good type 1 decks now a days have first turn counter or play artifact mana/speed. 

Also I tend to agree with everything BurningIce said, but then again my opinion is biased because i created the card, but i think he makes a great point with Hull Breach and the fact Sink Hole has Dark Rit. to get it going so fast.

[Bram]

I mean a card like this in type 1 would not make that big of a difference, it would just be fun.

Possibly. The aim, however, is to make that are good and/or fun in T1 that could possibly see print today. I realise this applies more to some of the cards in the Master List that to others, but this is still the policy. Reprinting Sinkhole would not hurt T1, but is sure as hell won't happen anyway. This means that we don't get to make BB-costing land destruction spells with no drawback, for example.

[Matt]

Ummm...... Red has had Stone Rain since Alpha, and Pillage since Alliances.... both cost 3, how is that recent?

It's recent because red keeps getting Stone Rain. It's in eighth edition, and almost certainly will be in 9th. Red also has recently gotten [card]Molten Rain[/card], while green's most recent LD cards are [card]Reap and Sow[/card] and [card]Feast of Worms[/card]. Black got Befoul reprinted in CHK, but beyond that the last black LD spell was Earthblighter, which is pretty much black/red anyway (it needs a goblin). Black hasn't seen a 3cc land destruction spell since Torment, and green hasn't since Tempest, which is stretching so far back that it really doesn't count. Pretty much every rule about what colors get to do has been changed around since Invasion, and much of those rules are even newer.

Green gets fat land destruction, red gets both cheap and fat, and black only gets a tiny bit of LD ever in any form.

I mean a card like this in type 1 would not make that big of a difference, it would just be fun.

That's true. Type one would hardly even notice this card. But it would ruin a lot of block, type two, and extended games, and thus we can't make it.

[Odern420]

How would you feel about an effect that allows that lands controller to play spells in his next turn for 1 less ?? I'm not 100% sure i like that but its would fall into flavor asa darw back for a LD card yea know ?

[dandan]

Has the idea of destroying a non-basic land been ditched? I thought that was a reasonable and balanced way of allowing a RG cc LD spell. The spell would still be strong but apart from Legacy and Vintage, formats that can live with a conditional Gold Sinkhole, it would be fairly unlikely to be a problem. 

[Odern420]

I'm just stubborn..... runs in my family..... but to your point, BurningIce recommended it cost 2RG and pop 2 non basics..... but in Type one why not just play Ruinition at 3R and pop all non-basics, or run 4 Wastelands..... nope, i just like plan old "Any Land".... Do you not think my draw back made it balanced ?

[dandan]

Your drawback made it ugly. Paying 5 life or returning a land seem odd effects

If you really want it to stay at RG (and I seem to be in a very small minority trying to keep it at 2cc) it can't just kill any land, it needs a drawback and a drawback related to the spell or colours un some way.

Destroy target land. Sacrifice a land with the same land type as that land.  (this sucks versus Green and Red decks and also makes it harder to hit multilands cleanly)

That might still be too strong but at least the idea of collateral damage with LD is logical.

Or

Destroy target land if it is non-basic
Kicker 2
Destroy that land if it is basic

[asmoranomardicodais]

you must never play type 1 or dont pay attention to older sets. Also i thought the whole idea of Magic was to foil your oppents strategy in order to win ? I mean a card like this in type 1 would not make that big of a difference, it would just be fun.

First of all, Vintage and Legacy ARE ALL I PLAY, PERIOD. Secondly, I started playing at mirage, which may not be old, but its pretty far back, so yes, I DO pay attention to older sets. Please don't attack the author because you disagree with what they say.

Anyway, of course magic is about foiling your opponents strategy. You seem to think that that includes deciding the game before turn three. While that does happen, especially in Type I, Wizards by no means wants to enable strategies who's point is to do that as often as possible, especially in Type II.
No, no one would notice the card in Type I, but that's because Type I already has sinkhole, which was a mistake in the first place.  If this card were in Type two, it would be run by everyone that could run it, blurring the format.

Anyway, destroying a nonbasic land might be okay, but that's really the only way I see the card ever being printed.

[Matt]

I actually really liked {G}, destroy two nonbasics. That's my favorite suggestion so far. That would be better than Ruination in the same way that Diabolic Edict is better than Innocent Blood: it won't detroy your own nonbasics, which you would certainly have if you're playing both red and green!

[dandan]

RG Destroy any land is a no-no. You might get away with 'destroy non-basic land', a few people have said they could live with that but I think that is pushing the envelope as far as it goes.

The 2Rg version that destroys 2 non-basics is also interesting although is more of a control card (Plow Under/Stunted Growth) than a LD card [I hope it is clear what I mean].

If you want this to destroy any land it will cost 3 mana.

[Odern420]

Why do people keep calling it a Sink Hole......... A), its not black and cant be comboed with Dark Rit..... B) Its multi-colored so its hard to cast than sinkhole and isnt a guaranteed 2nd turn drop..... after all the comments i still dotn see wh ythis card would be to powerful...... its about like when Vindicate came out and everyone was like "Oh no, black has a disenchant"...... and low an behold the game made it , and vindicate isnt even really used that often anymore. I dont know, I just dont think this card is that big a deal.

[Bram]

See, but the thing is: we're not reaching concensus here. So far, it's three people for your card, and five against (two of whom are moderators that get to decide whether or not a card gets added). So either you follow the suggestions proposed to weaken it, come up with your own solution, or you abandon the idea, because it won't be added in its current form. It's tough, I know, but we've all been there. It's your call.

[Shadow-Walker]

I dont really have a problem with hitting 1 non-basic at 2, but the loses 2 life part definetly has to go as it isnt in flavor for either of the colors.

[Godder]

~This~ deals two damage to that land's controller would work (very Red – see Molten Rain). It's right on the edge of power level, but it would probably be ok (just).

[Matt]

This looks fine now, but I think a slight rewording is in order:


Vegetation of Stone
{G}
Sorcery
Kicker
Destroy target land if it's nonbasic. If the kicker cost was paid, destroy that land instead.

Taken from Prohibit.

[LordHomerCat]

I agree with Matt, I think you need that "destroy target land if..."; but then again, I don't know the exact rules for kicker very well (wasnt playing at that time).  Would it work as is, or would he ahve to announce targets BEFORE deciding to pay the kicker, hence he would have to target a nonbasic all the time and the whole kicker thing is irrelevant (with the current wording, not matt's)?  Anyway, Matt's seems cleaner anyway.  I vote to change it to that.

[Godder]

Kicker is part of the cost of the spell i.e. you don't pay some of the cost, and then the Kicker, you have to pay all of it at once. The way Matt has it worded, you can target any land (a bit like REB as opposed to Pyroblast) whether or not you pay the Kicker, but it will only destroy non-basic lands when the spell resolves, unless you paid the Kicker.

[dandan]

As it stands it is a fine LD spell that I would certainly put in RG LD decks in most formats. It is IMHO slightly stronger than Wizards would allow but I like it.