Arithmancy (I swiped the name for a new card)

[Ephraim]

Arithmancy
{W}
Sorcery

Reveal two nonland cards from your hand. Draw cards equal to the difference in their converted mana costs.

***

While brainstorming ways to make the old card -- now Numerology -- better, this idea came up. It actually involves some arithmetic, so I decided to give it the "Arithmancy" name. To better clarify why I have made these white, while blue is the colour of study and knowledge, arithmetic and counting actually seem to be beneath blue. Wisdom, knowledge, and education are some of the areas in which blue and white agree. White, however, is much more primitive in this regard than blue is. If a card referenced algebra, calculus, geometry or any advanced mathematics or science, it would be blue. Since this only references arithmetic, it feels like a very low-level mathematical spell, which seems appropriate for white. I've costed this a little cheaper than it may deserve since it requires you to have no fewer than two other nonland cards in your hand when you cast it. Also, while it will draw three or more cards sometimes, there are other times when it will be no better than a cantrip. The inconsistency is worth the discount, in my opinion. I could cost it at {W}, which would be analagous to Airborne Aid, but I see this as an uncommon card-drawer, which seems to merit a slightly better mana ratio.

***

Current Wording:

Arithmancy
{W}
Sorcery

Reveal two nonland cards in your hand. If you do, draw cards equal to the difference in their converted mana costs.

[Matt]

I like this a lot.

[BruiZar]

finally a reason not to brainstorm DS collosus and fetch it away!

[Godder]

finally a reason not to brainstorm DS collosus and fetch it away!

You still would, just not till after you'd played this, revealed them, and drawn ten cards... I still like the card, though – White needs good card-drawing .

[Anusien]

I disagree.  White's knowledge and learning is more likely to come in the form of "Pursuit of Knowledge", "Prophecy", "Spiritual Focus".  Almost every other form of knowledge or learning in a card is blue: Accumulated Knowledge, Ancestral Knowledge, Relearn, Pedantic Learning, etc.  However, this is an awesome mechanic, and Wizards is always trying to push players to play with fatties.  I really like the mechanic but I'd fix up the flavor.  If you want to keep this white, I'd mix up the flavor a little.

[neppy]

I think this is undercosted at 2W.  Counsel of the Soratami costs 2U and draws 2 cards, which this can pretty much always beat, and with setup this is huge. 

[Das_Boot]

This is really, really, really good.  In limited, it is at least 2W: Draw 3 cards almost every time, and in Standard and Block, it will be the same if not better.  Hell, it even gives Parfait a real draw engine. I think that this would be fair and still very playable if it was 3W.  3W guarantees uncastability turn 2 and turn 3 in most decks.  It would still be a little worrisome in G/W decks if the cards were there, but I think it would turn out OK.

[silvernail]

use a mox and a dsc to draw 11 cards hurray a reason to splash white! but ya 3W is good or maybe 1WWW or 2WW the mroe white involved the harder it might be to use.

[Matt]

3W should be good. That's the speed of FoF but it's much harder to use, since not only do you have to do a little setup but you also have to include several high-cost cards in your deck.

[Ephraim]

I upped the mana cost to {W} and I am starting the 24 Hour Clock.

[Ephraim]

I just thought of something. Does this card need to have reminder text (or maybe even rules text) stating that if you can't reveal two cards, you don't get to draw any? I guess it feels implied, but what do the rules say this card would do if you only revealed one card? I'm paranoid that they'd let you draw cards equal to the CMC of the single revealed card.

[dandan]

Use the good old 'If you do' clause. That is short and fixes the problem IMHO

[Matt]

It should be "in" not "from".

[JAG]

I just thought of something. Does this card need to have reminder text (or maybe even rules text) stating that if you can't reveal two cards, you don't get to draw any? I guess it feels implied, but what do the rules say this card would do if you only revealed one card? I'm paranoid that they'd let you draw cards equal to the CMC of the single revealed card.

I feel like this is similar to the buyback cost on Forbid i.e. if you can't reveal 2 cards, you get nothing.  Of course, if the rules don't support that, then dandan's fix solves the problem nicely.

-JM

[Ephraim]

I just thought of something. Does this card need to have reminder text (or maybe even rules text) stating that if you can't reveal two cards, you don't get to draw any? I guess it feels implied, but what do the rules say this card would do if you only revealed one card? I'm paranoid that they'd let you draw cards equal to the CMC of the single revealed card.

I feel like this is similar to the buyback cost on Forbid i.e. if you can't reveal 2 cards, you get nothing.  Of course, if the rules don't support that, then dandan's fix solves the problem nicely.

-JM

Buyback assess an additional cost to the card. Revealing the cards isn't an additional cost for this, so I think I need the "If you do" clause.

[JAG]

The card definitely needs both cards to do anything.  There is no "difference" between the costs if you only reveal one card. 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with the "if you do" clause, but if we don't need it, wouldn't it be better to not have it?

-JM

[Ephraim]

The card definitely needs both cards to do anything.  There is no "difference" between the costs if you only reveal one card. 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with the "if you do" clause, but if we don't need it, wouldn't it be better to not have it?

-JM

I am going to leave it in place. Although intuitively, it seems that having fewer than two cards to reveal would make this spell inoperable, I don't know what the rules have to say on the matter. The difference in the mana costs between one spell and no spell may be the converted mana cost of that one spell. Am I sure? No. Am I sure that it's not? No. Therefore, I'm going to use the wording that removes all ambiguity.

[Matt]

On the one hand, we do want the cleanest wording possible. On the other, it's also important for players to be able to figure out what a card does just by reading it. Between the two, I think we should go with Eph's plan.

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[Bram]

Closed and added.