Shock Wave

[Machinus]

Shock Wave

Sorcery
Choose one - Destroy target artifact; or destroy target nonbasic land; or destroy target artifact and target nonbasic land

[Anusien]

Word it
"Choose one -- Destroy target artifact; or destroy target nonbasic land; or destroy target artifact and target nonbasic land."
That's the way Hull Breach is worded.

I'm not sure I like it, but it feels like a solid uncommon.  Seems costed fairly.

[Machinus]

All my cards end up being uncommon!

Wording changed.

[Marco]

I don't know... Pillage is a solid card and it can only destroy an artifact or a land for .  Demolish does it for .  This destroys an artifact and a (nonbasic) land for .  The artifact or land can be regenerated, but still...

Neat idea though.  Like Hull Breach (which I never really liked because it is a Sorcery).

[Machinus]

Pillage is very strong because it can hit basic lands. I don't think the and clause is as strong as that.

[Matt]

I think I would rather lose the "and" clause and give it Entwine.

[Machinus]

The reason I think it works is because splitting up this cost is kind of difficult. Destroying an artifact is worth slightly less than , but destroying a nonbasic land is worth just a little more than (or is it worth just that much? if it is, this spell could be 1R entwine 1). This would mean it would be slightly undercosted for LD, and look even more like pillage. Pillage is an awesome card, and I don't want to make a new one.

Perhaps I can create a new mechanic here. One of the tricks design uses is placing targeting restrictions on cards. One such restriction is requiring all of a spells targets be legal before casting it. This means that they can make very powerful cards that only work in narrow situations (decimate, hex).

What if you could reduce this restriction by paying a cost?

Shockwave

Sorcery
Choose both of these - Destroy target artifact, and destroy target nonbasic land.
"unravel" - sacrifice a permanent. (When you play this spell, you may sacrifice a permanent. If you do, you may choose only one target).

[Anusien]

I'd rather not keyword a drawback.  Even if it's strategic, it's still a drawback.

[zeus-online]

Upkeep, cumulative upkeep....whats wrong with keywording drawbacks?

/Zeus

[Machinus]

I think the original version is better anyway. There were and/or cards before entwine, and there have been after, so I don't see any reason to give that mechanic to this card.

[Negator131]

See also: Echo.

This card seems very powerful. Look at how good this would be in, for instance, Type 2 right now, which is at a pretty high power level these days. Obviously by Vintage standards this is fine, but still. Something to think about.

[Machinus]

This would obviously not be printed in the current dual-land environment. If it was made in a more monocolored environment, it would be fine. It would also be acceptable in Extended.