Tectonic Growth

[netherspirit]

Hehe, I thought it might be cool if there was a card that made land tokens, so here's my attempt:

Tectonic Growth
3GG
Enchantment
As ~this~ comes into play choose a colour.
Tap 2 untapped lands you control: Put a Plate token into play, treat token this as a land that says "T: Add one mana of the chosen colour to your mana pool". Play this ability only once per turn.

I'm not sure if the mana cost is right, and maybe I should limit the ability to sorcery speed.

[chrissss]

I thgink becauseof the once a turn ability, maybe 2GG or even 1GG/GGG should be better.

although its probably a combo with some other cards.

GGG would be better against multicolor decks. 

[Matt]

Tokens that aren't creatures are bad. Try this:


As ~this~ comes into play choose a basic land type.
: Search your library for a land of the chosen type and put it into play, then shuffle your library. Play this ability only once per turn.

This way you have physical cards to represent the lands, and it can even get dual lands. Also, there's virtually no difference between tapping two lands and just paying . It's a general rule that lands have to have mana abilities. The only exception is stuff like fetchlands, which basically do have a mana ability anyway.

[netherspirit]

Oooh yeah, I don't know why I thought tapping lands was more appropriate than paying mana  :lol:

Tokens that aren't creatures are bad.

I'm not bothered whether or not they're bad! The idea of this card (as I've already said) was that it put land tokens into play.

[combo_dude]

Oooh yeah, I don't know why I thought tapping lands was more appropriate than paying mana  :lol:

Tokens that aren't creatures are bad.

I'm not bothered whether or not they're bad! The idea of this card (as I've already said) was that it put land tokens into play.

He means "bad" as in, "a complete rules nightmare". Seriously, don't go there.

[Matt]

It doesn't actually break the rules - it's possible to construct noncreature tokens using some silly tricks right now. But it's a headache to keep track of that kind of thing.

[netherspirit]

But it's a headache to keep track of that kind of thing.

I can't see that it's any harded than keeping track of creature tokens, as long as you keep them with the rest of your lands I don't think itd be too hard.

[combo_dude]

Maybe it's not so difficult, but it's at the very least unnecessarily complicated. I don't know if you've noticed the general trend in more recent sets with counters  - they've made almost all counters into either charge counters or +1/+1 counters, and the reason for this is to make it easy to keep track of things. Is there something so inherently wrong with just fetching lands? I quite like the card like that.

[zeus-online]

Looks like a fun card one way or the other! Great card to build a casual deck around...
I'd have to agree that the land-fetching version seems more simple and more "smooth"...so I'd personally prefer that one.
No need to create more humilities...!

/Zeus

[netherspirit]

But that kinda defeats the initial idea of the card

I don't know if you've noticed the general trend in more recent sets with counters  - they've made almost all counters into either charge counters or +1/+1 counters, and the reason for this is to make it easy to keep track of things.

I had noticed, but Magic is a constantly growing and evolving game, boundaries have to be pushed some times and new ideas and realms need to be explored. (And as far as I know no card to date has produced land tokens)

[Ephraim]

But that kinda defeats the initial idea of the card

I don't know if you've noticed the general trend in more recent sets with counters  - they've made almost all counters into either charge counters or +1/+1 counters, and the reason for this is to make it easy to keep track of things.

I had noticed, but Magic is a constantly growing and evolving game, boundaries have to be pushed some times and new ideas and realms need to be explored. (And as far as I know no card to date has produced land tokens)

Some boundaries exist because Wizards of the Coast has wisely decided that the game would not be enriched by violating them.  This is one of those boundaries.  Consider, for example, that creature tokens have the same power as toughness.  Within a block, all creature tokens of the same size and colour are the same creature type and name.  Among creature tokens, creature types and names are frequently reused.  You really don't find WotC violating these boundaries.

In the same way, what we're trying to tell you is that it is the firm belief of many of us here in the Card Creation Forum that the "creature tokens only" principle is a boundary that we think should not be violated.  Unlike WotC, we do not have genuine veto power.  You may, ultimately, push your card through with or without our approval.  Perhaps you could start, however, by explaining why you think this boundary should be violated.  "Because it's never been done before" is not going to persuade us, but if you feel as though your idea really enriches the game, then tell us why.

Thanks,
Ephraim

[netherspirit]

Right, I guess this is gonna take some convincing. First of all let me tell you that I completely understand and appreciate where you're coming from with this. But the reason I would prefer it to put land tokens into play could probaly be summed up as "Because it's never been done before". But that obviously isn't enough.
 
Magic, as i said before, is a constantly changing game. Just because this boundary looks like it may not be a good idea to push it it doesn't mean it shouldn't at least be tested. Look at Psychic Possession for instance, who would think of enchanting an opponent? You can't get it to stick to them (hehehe) and in multiplayer formats (ie more than two players) it may become confusing. Land tokens shouldn't get too confusing because as long as you keep them with the rest of your mana base they'll be easy to use. In all honesty I can't see that this is going to do any damage to the game, it's not going to lead to too much confusion, it's quite obviously not broken, and it could open up a whole new range of options with cards in the future. Take Ravnica for example, there are a lot of tokens being produced in decks at the moment, and some are different creature types, power and toughness, colour(s) etc; yet I have seen very little if any opposition to this.

In conclusion I think this could enrich the game because it would allow future cards to use land tokens and maybe even have cards that effect only nontoken lands/token lands, it would also mean that certain cards, such as Doubling Season for instance, would find more use. So my reason isn't just "Because it's never been done before", but also that it could allow more future interactions.

So Ephraim, now I would like to know why you and other people feel it would not be a gd idea :p

Thanks for your opinion and it is nice to see people are listening to what I say and actually responding.
Cheers, netherspirit.

[Ephraim]

Magic is a game of increasing complexity and perpertual change, but very seldom does it increase the complexity in a way that is unnecessary (any more than anything to do with a game is "necessary.")   Creature tokens can and should exist because they allow for the creation of vanilla creatures in decks that may not have vanilla creatures (or mostly vanilla creatures) to search for.  Land, on the other hand, is absolutely fundamental to the game.  Only in the most unusual circumstances will you find a deck completely devoid of lands with basic land types.  For that reason, it is unnecessary to add the complexity of land tokens to the game.  In almost any situation where you may want to create a land token, causing a player to search for a land does approximately the same thing without creating any new complexity.

That said, if you would still like to create land tokens, perhaps you could do it in a way that creates new complexity because there is no other good way to do what you want to do.  If I may offer an example of a card for which I would endorse land tokens...

Tectonic Growth
{G}
Sorcery

Choose a basic land type.  Each player puts a land token into play that is the chosen type.

This is necessary because your opponent may not be playing with the basic land type you want to give him.  This card uses the land-token mechanism to enable landwalk and other miscellaneous land-based abilities and it does so green's way (instead of blue's way, which is how a card like this would normally be executed.)

[netherspirit]

Yeah, I admit I do see what you mean, however, I still think land tokens could be feasibly done. Your card idea is definitely interesting and it has more sense of purpose than my version. I think it's obvious we both understand each other's points here, so, moving back onto the card itself; how does this look?

Tectonic Growth
1GG
Enchantment
As ~this~ comes into play choose a basic land type
2,T: Each puts a basic land token of the chosen type into play.

[Ephraim]

Yeah, I admit I do see what you mean, however, I still think land tokens could be feasibly done. Your card idea is definitely interesting and it has more sense of purpose than my version. I think it's obvious we both understand each other's points here, so, moving back onto the card itself; how does this look?

Tectonic Growth
1GG
Enchantment
As ~this~ comes into play choose a basic land type
2,T: Each puts a basic land token of the chosen type into play.

This card gets my seal of approval.

[Matt]

Land tokens will probably never get my seal of approval. First of all, they basically cannot exist in a block that uses any significant token creatures, for obvious organized play reasons. This makes them clumsy to use.

Second, the VAST majority of such cards are 99% better off just using actual lands, as has been noted - all but the most niche applications of Ephraim's card are already done (and done better) by a simple Phantasmal Terrain effect (which gives them the land type you want but doesn't accelerate your opponent).

The thing about tokens is that they're really, really flavorless. It's almost a design dead end. This idea comes up rather often, and every attempt to rationalize land tokens invariably is just that: a rationalization, which always is just a euphemism for "because it's never been done before."

[Ephraim]

Second, the VAST majority of such cards are 99% better off just using actual lands, as has been noted - all but the most niche applications of Ephraim's card are already done (and done better) by a simple Phantasmal Terrain effect (which gives them the land type you want but doesn't accelerate your opponent).

Although it is better to use a Phantasmal Terrain effect, that is a blue effect.  The application here is a response to the question, "How does green give an opponent a land type that they would not normally have?"  I think that it is a question worthy of answer and I think that land tokens are a valid response.  Green gives an opponent a land type that they would not normally have by giving an opponent land!

[Matt]

SHOULD green be doing that?




...well, yeah, probably it is still in green's color pie slice. Still, I don't like land tokens.

[GerryMander]

what about power level?  Reusable Sakura Tribe Elder?  Last time I checked, the Sak Tribe was all kinds of good as it is.

[Ephraim]

what about power level?  Reusable Sakura Tribe Elder?  Last time I checked, the Sak Tribe was all kinds of good as it is.

The latest proposed wording is less of a Sakura Tribe Elder and more of a Veteran Explorer.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[Matt]

It's also more of a Perilous Forays than STE. Five mana is a lot.

[netherspirit]

Would 3 mana be to little for a mana cost?

[Matt]

Yes. Four minimum.

[netherspirit]

Okie doke, what about a draw back of some kind? Is it really necessary or does the activation cost make it fair?