New Mechanic

[Marco]

This mechanic was created by someone with the screen name "Athani" on another website. I'm not usually blown away by new mechanics, but this one caught my fancy:

Theft (You may play mana abilities of lands you don't control, putting the mana they generate into your mana pool. Use mana produced this way only to play this spell.)

I'm not sold on the name of the mechanic. I initially thought of "Mana Siphon" then shortened it to "Siphon", but I think there is a better name out there somewhere.

Here is what I believe is the original thread the mechanic appeared in:

http://forums.mtgnews.com/showthread.php?t=200826&highlight=Theft

(Someone with the screen name Scuirimancer later shortened the rules text to: You may tap opponents' lands for mana to pay for this spell.)

When I first saw this mechanic I immediately thought of Drain Power and Pygmy Hippo and went directly to Gatherer for the most recent Oracle wordings of these cards to convince myself that this mechanic worked within the rules and maybe to try to come up with a better wording:

Siphon (Target player plays a mana ability of each land he or she controls, then empties his or her mana pool. This spell costs 1 less to play for each mana emptied from that player's mana pool this way.)

Siphon (You may have target player play a mana ability of each land he or she controls and empty his or her mana pool. If you do, add X to your mana pool, where X is equal to the amount of mana emptied from that player's mana pool this way. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)

Siphon (Target player plays a mana ability of each land he or she controls, then empties his or her mana pool. Add mana to your mana pool equal to the type and amount emptied from that player's mana pool this way. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)

I spent a fair amount of time on these overly wordy rules texts before I realized that this mechanic is more like Piracy than Drain Power. And, in fact, that Athani's rules text came directly from Piracy. (It wouldn't be the first time Wizards of the Coast based a mechanic on a previously printed card...)

I consider myself to have an average to above average understanding of the comprehensive rules. However, when I started playing Magic back in 1995 I scoffed at those players that played a spell (card) and then tapped their mana afterwards. Maybe it was wrong back then (the rules have changed), or maybe I scoffed because the players that did this often cheated by not paying the spells' mana costs...

The rule that covers playing spells in the comprehensive rules is rule 409, especially 409.1f:

The player determines the total cost of the spell or ability. Usually this is just the mana cost (for spells) or activation cost (for abilities). Some cards list additional or alternative costs in their text, and some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost, activation cost, or alternative cost, plus all cost increases and minus all cost reductions. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes "locked in." If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.

I think this mechanic would work much like Affinity or Convoke.

To avoid timing issues when you are playing mana abilities of lands you don't control (playing mana abilities doesn't use the stack, and unfortunately, Split Second-type wording wouldn't help here as opponents can still play mana abilities when you play a spell with Split Second), cards with this mechanic should be cards that can only be played at sorcery-speed (when the stack is empty and the active player has priority): sorceries, creatures, and maybe artifacts and enchantments. This would allow your opponent to use instants and abilities of permanents in response before you get the mana from their mana pool. Of course, all of this flies out the window with a Vedalken Orrery or Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir in play...

Cards with this mechanic can have a side-effect of Mana Shorting your opponent. On the other hand, opponents that use all of their mana on their turns can prevent you from using their mana to play your spell. There's more than one way to approach this mechanic, but I think the cantrip rule of adding 2 colorless to the mana cost may be the way to go* (obviously, we can't cost cards with this mechanic the same as cards without the mechanic that do the same thing).

* For example, Stone Rain + = Implode

To get the discussion ball rolling, here are some examples:

Wrath of God Variant
4WW
Sorcery
Siphon (You may play mana abilities of lands you don’t control, putting the mana they generate into your mana pool. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)
Destroy all creatures. They can't be regenerated.

Pillage Variant
3RR
Sorcery
Siphon (You may play mana abilities of lands you don’t control, putting the mana they generate into your mana pool. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)
Destroy target artifact or land. It can't be regenerated.

Sylvan Scrying Variant
3G
Sorcery
Siphon (You may play mana abilities of lands you don’t control, putting the mana they generate into your mana pool. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)
Search your library for a land card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.

These may not seem all that original, and may seem inferior to the spells they are emulating; however, these spells, like Affinity and Convoke spells, have the potential to be free (cost you no mana). There are other effects that you can give spells with this mechanic, but a set with this mechanic would likely be a stand alone mechanic and would need staple spells like these...

[dandan]

I like this idea as it is stronger in the later stages of a game and therefore not likely to be broken early. The mechanic itself is interesting with effects like Wrath as an opponent may not want to tap out to cast more creatures but not tapping out means the Wrath can be cast earlier. Casting creatures to delay a Wrath is an interesting strategic decision. However, it does suggest that this mechanic does not belong to all colours, specifically, it feels Red as a punisher effect for nasty mages who leave lands untapped (cough Islands).

Is there any way that an opponent can merely float mana before you tap their lands? Pygmy Hippo empies mana pools as well, presumably someone at Wizards though this is a good reason to do this and I can't remember the multicoloured river horse causing any rules issues so it might be worthwhile following his lead.

[Marco]

I think the mechanic is interesting enough that it shouldn't be limited to certain colours; however, I have created more red cards with this mechanic than any other colour (including a Pyroclasm variant for 3R). Still, I like the Wrath of God variant.

As with Drain Power, "your opponent may use Instants and abilities of permanents in response ... before you get the mana from their mana pool and lands." Therefore, your opponent can merely float mana before you tap their lands; however, if they don't have a mana sink they will take mana burn. Even if the wording included emptying their mana pool, they could still tap their lands in response, but, if they don't actually use the mana you still get it... That's cool...

[parallax]

Actually, your opponent would not get to tap their lands in response because you would tap their lands for mana during the announcement of the spell, a time when they don't have permission to play mana abilities.

[starfreakclone]

How does this interact with filter lands?

[Norm4eva]

Doesn't this give acceleration to decks that don't (or shouldn't) have it otherwise?  This seems like it really punishes a player for not curving out, especially the Pillage effect.  Unless your intention was to only be able to play these spells off the opponent's land, I don't feel very comfortable with this mechanic.  It also stands to give decks weird sideboards that they shouldn't have access to, like letting GR beats play Blue cards against control (or giving CounterBurn decks a Wrath against Boros Deck Wins, to get really specific :P :P). In any event, I can't say as I like it.

[orgcandman]

the more I look at this, the more I think that this mechanic, as-is, represents something too powerful.

The problem stems from two things:
- every card with this mechanic represents mana denial. each one has multiple stone-rains built in
- if you make the card cheap, then you're giving the player a free effect, and causing the opponent to be taken completely out of the game. If you make the card expensive, then it either becomes unplayable, or even better than it was since it can completely asymmetrically take out the opponent.

Think about this: if you have a twiddle card with this mechanic, you essentially get 2 twiddles. If you have a draw card, you get to shut your opponent off from counter magic. Same for a threat, solution, etc. And the investment is nothing, to boot.

I think this adds way too much inherent randomness to the game. "Oops, I topped my 4cc wrath that I play with your mana shutting you off from your rewind / mana leak. Win!"

[Marco]

I still think this idea has merit and would like for it to generate more discussion.

Actually, your opponent would not get to tap their lands in response because you would tap their lands for mana during the announcement of the spell, a time when they don't have permission to play mana abilities.

I didn't realize this initially, but I think you may be right. And if this is correct, it does make the mechanic much more powerful.

I've rethought it and I think this can be a red-only mechanic. I still like the idea of the Wrath, but I think it can be red based on cards like Breaking Point and MaRo's article on Planar Chaos (see the section on Mass Creature Destruction).

So right now we have:

Wrath of God Variant

Sorcery
Siphon (You may play mana abilities of lands you don’t control, putting the mana they generate into your mana pool. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)
Destroy all creatures. They can't be regenerated.

Pillage Variant

Sorcery
Siphon (You may play mana abilities of lands you don’t control, putting the mana they generate into your mana pool. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)
Destroy target artifact or land. It can't be regenerated.

Pyroclasm Variant

Sorcery
Siphon (You may play mana abilities of lands you don’t control, putting the mana they generate into your mana pool. Spend this mana only to play this spell.)
Pyroclasm Variant deals 2 damage to each creature.

Are these undercosted? Should they have more colored mana in their casting costs? Should they only be able to be cast with your opponent's mana as Norm4eva suggests? Should I add a "If you control a Mountain..." clause?

[Ephraim]

One possible solution to the power level of this ability would be to limit how many of your opponents' lands you can use.  It could even be a subtle way of making these more exciting in multiplayer while limiting their power level in duels.  For example:

Breath of God
4WW
Sorcery

Siphon 2 (For each other player, you may play mana abilities of up to two lands that player controls.  The mana generated this way is added to your mana pool and may be spent only to play this spell.)

Destroy all creatures.  They can't be regenerated.

[Marco]

That's a possibility, but I'm not sold on it yet. I've done a couple of card renders. The second incorporates Norm4eva suggestion and both incorporate the "If you control a Mountain..." clause to prevent other colours from playing cards with Siphon.

Bloodbath

Bloodbath2

[jro]

You could make this so it's part of the resolution of the spell, thereby allowing opponents to tap their lands for responses:
Stealspell
2C
Sorcery
Pay .  You may play mana abilities of lands you don't control to pay this cost.   If the cost is paid, [EFFECT].

A strange way of getting a similar effect would be to give cards a form of Affinity:
Stealcritter
2GG
Creature - Beast
Affinity for untapped lands opponents control
3/3

[Anusien]

I find the Siphon Wrath of God the most interesting simply because it changes the way aggro v Control plays out; the aggro player gets punished for not tapping out and overcommiting, because otherwise he gets Wrathed much more easily.  That said, I dislike mana denial as a cost.

[Norm4eva]

Yeah I still really dislike this mechanic.  I can imagine a block full of cards like this, each player waiting for the other one to not curve out so they can play their 'undercosted' madness and keep the opponent from playing their own Siphon spells.  That's another problem too - Siphon vs. Siphon would become an incredibly arduous matchup.
Using your opponent's land as your own is expensive.  See Annex.  I just can't get behind this, sorry boss :/

[jeek]

I'm not a fan of this mechanic, either, but a possible fix is letting the opponent choose which lands they tap to generate the mana.

[zimagic]

If it's only on Sorcery speed effects then your opponent will always have a chance to use their land before you.

After that it's just a question of costing correctly and bringing back aspects of Prophesy's tapped/untapped matters cards.

[Marco]

That's what I originally thought, zimagic. But according to parallax, if it's your main pahase and the stack is empty and you play a spell with siphon, your opponent would not get to tap their lands in response because you would tap their lands for mana during the announcement of the spell, a time when they don't have permission to play mana abilities. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he's right. (Of course, if your opponent tapped all of his or her lands on his or her turn, they won't have any untapped lands for you to use on your turn.) Any rules gurus in the house?

[Ephraim]

That interpretation sounds correct to me.  The fact that your opponent can tap out to prevent you from abusing Siphon is little comfort, though.  As other posters have mentioned, a mechanic that so harshly punishes the first player not to curve out isn't much fun.

Upon reflection, this could still be an interesting mechanic.  Rather than make the spells powerful and overcosted, though, make it so that they mostly benefit your opponent.  They'll be like spells that your opponent plays, except they're in you're deck.  You'll still get the mana denial benefit, but your opponent will get the benefit of the spell's effect.  I'm not saying that they'll be good, but they're sort of card that Johnny loves.

Witty Banter
3U
Instant
Siphon
Target opponent draws two cards.

[jro]

Parallax is correct.  This ability as originally envisioned would not let your opponent play mana abilities once you have announced the spell.  Whether the spell with this ability is Sorcery speed or not doesn't matter.

I like Ephraim's take on using this for things that benefit the opponent, but the card still acts like an uncounterable Mana Short.

[Nydaeli]

I've got a wording for it that works, I think.  The problem is, I don't know how to make it actually be a keyword, so the best solution I can come up with is to make a cycle that are related by name.  Using the WOG variant as an example:

Siphon of Wrath
WW
Tap four untapped lands.  If you do, destroy all creatures.

It would work fine as a keyword for creatures: Siphon 4 (When ~this~ comes into play, tap four untapped lands.  If you don't, sacrifice ~this.~)

But I don't think sorceries can counter themselves.

[zimagic]

That's what I originally thought, zimagic. But according to parallax, if it's your main pahase and the stack is empty and you play a spell with siphon, your opponent would not get to tap their lands in response because you would tap their lands for mana during the announcement of the spell, a time when they don't have permission to play mana abilities. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he's right. (Of course, if your opponent tapped all of his or her lands on his or her turn, they won't have any untapped lands for you to use on your turn.) Any rules gurus in the house?

I understand that but what's the differnce to Citadel of Pain or Mana Short against any deck not running U or the Split Second Mana Short coming up in the next set?  Each punishes you for not using your resources, not in the same way but still each in their own deck.

This says that you better think about playing your cards during your turn or you risk giving your opponent an advantage. That's a big skilltester with the downside of being a beating against mana flooded opponents. But your opponent is taking the risk of having a dead / overcosted card if you do curve out.

Look, I'm not saying that it's the best thing since sliced bread but in a block designed around when you play your spells it could be good and it works against the current way we play instants.

Ways to balance this would be to use Nydaeli's wording as a direction or a "land convoke" but keep the coloured cost significative. You could only pay for the colourless part of the card with opponent's lands for example. Which brings us to another question, how do you play this guy when you're mono W and your opponent is Mono B:

 
Siphon (the original version)
Creature
Flying First Strike
3/3

You can't pay the  off a swamp.

[jro]

Which brings us to another question, how do you play this guy when you're mono W and your opponent is Mono B:

 
Siphon (the original version)
Creature
Flying First Strike
3/3

You can't pay the  off a swamp.

1) You tap 5 plains and get a 3/3 flyer.  That's pretty good by itself.
2) Who cares?  No card ever printed requires CCCCC.  A generic 3/3 flyer certainly wouldn't be the first.
3) A more important question is what do you do in the mirror match?  Do players start mana burning themselves just to not give mana to the opponent?  Like AF said in the article about the Flash banning in re Land Tax, not playing your first land should never be the right (defensive) play.
4) An uncounterable Early Frost should probably cost either 2 or 3.  I think that has to be factored in when costing these spells if you use the early versions of Siphon.
5) The difference between these and cards like Mana Short is that Mana Short is a whole card dedicated to the idea of tapping out your opponent.  These tap out your opponent, plus give you an effect, sometimes for free!

[Anusien]

What about a twist on the free spell mechanism?  And don't worry, I suggest a few improvements:
#1) You only untap if your opponent has lands to tap
#2) You don't ever untap for full

Something like:
Siphon Wrath of God -
Sorcery
Destroy all creatures.
Siphon - 3 (Tap up to three target untapped lands an opponent controls.  For each land tapped this way, untap a land.)