Holocaust

[Pin]

Holocaust



enchantment

Target land loses all abilities, including mana production. Land's owner loses one life at the beginning of each upkeep. If Holocaust leaves play, the land it enchanted leaves play.

Kicker: Return Holocaust to your hand if it is removed from play by an opponent.

First the fire came, then plague. When the water began to pour down we thought it might be merciful.

-------

This is a card I designed back in 1997 to combine Stone Rain and Cursed Land. I've added the blue features (cantrip and the like) to make it good enough to see play while also making it more difficult to cast given the fact that it needs to have a low overall mana cost in order to be viable. The card hasn't been tested or tuned, because every time I look at it I change it. So, here is the prototype.

[andrewpate]

Ignoring the abilities for the moment, Holocaust is one of those extremely evocative, simple, single-word card names that R&D jealously hoards for the perfect moment.  Like how Maro always complains that Jinx was wasted on a horrible slowtrip noone has ever heard of.  There is no way this name would be expended on such an odd card.  If ever used, it'll most likely be on a rare sorcery with major "wow" factor, like Damnation and such.

Moving on to the text.  Barring some fairly complex hijinks, this essentially destroys a land for two mana.  Right there, it is right out, even in two colors.  Wizards loathes even printing 3-cost LD, and they carefully monitor the number of such spells available in a given format.  They would never allow this card to exist.

Also, the blue ability, in addition to being badly templated, has nothing to do with the rest of the card and involves terrible memory issues.  It feels tacked on and awkward.

Raise the cost to and change the colors to that order (the correct order for B/R gold cards), drop the blue ability entirely, change the name, and switch the templating to this:

Cardname



Enchantment - Aura

Enchant land

Enchanted land loses all abilities.

At the beginning of the upkeep of enchanted land's controller, he or she loses 1 life.

When ~Cardname~ leaves play, remove enchanted land from the game.

That looks much better, but it's still ridiculously powerful.  I would much more expect to see this at .

[Matt]

I can't imagine ANY card ever being named "holocaust", for sensitivity reasons.

[Pin]

That looks much better, but it's still ridiculously powerful.  I would much more expect to see this at (4 total mana).

Ridiculously powerful? You're taking away abilities/mana from one land and doing only 1 damage per upkeep as long as the enchantment says in play. How is that powerful, especially when you're making it two colors and three total mana? I doubt it would ever see play in a Legacy deck with that design.

Cursed Land was a horrible card precisely because it was made way too expensive. I'm not sure why we would want another overpriced card that won't see play.

I did have the exact design you posted at one point, but I wanted something that would see play in tier-one tournament decks. That's why I added the blue and lowered the cost. Maybe I made it too good. But, I can't imagine anyone paying four mana to remove a land a deal a bit of damage slowly.

Wizards loathes even printing 3-cost LD, and they carefully monitor the number of such spells available in a given format.

And, is there, for instance, a land destruction and/or mana denial deck that's seen tournament play in the last five years? Have any of them won a tournament?

I acknowledge that the blue templating is a bit clunky. So, suggestions for improving it are appreciated.

[Pin]

I can't imagine ANY card ever being named "holocaust", for sensitivity reasons.

I considered that, but there are worse things in Magic and the card's design doesn't have anything to do with people. You're probably correct, but I don't think the word should be off limits.

Plus, rather than a positive reference, it's certainly damning. A land is destroyed and damages its controller. That sounds pretty accurate.

[Matt]

Ridiculously powerful? You're taking away abilities/mana from one land and doing only 1 damage per upkeep as long as the enchantment says in play. How is that powerful, especially when you're making it two colors and three total mana? I doubt it would ever see play in a Legacy deck with that design.

First off, judging a card by Legacy standards is wrong. Legacy has a VERY high power level.

Second, this is just flat-out better than Sinkhole (a card already overpowered) in two ways. A Sinkhole that ALSO does like 5-8 damage? Ridiculously overpowered, even if it is gold.

Why does this have the blue ability at all? You do realize that kicker is optional, and so it doesn't "make it more difficult to cast", right? There's no reason this card needs to cantrip other than just blatantly powering it up, which is silly.

If you want to combine Stone Rain and Cursed Land, that's fine, but you can't really make a 2-mana LD spell without some serious restrictions or drawbacks (see Boom//Bust or Lava Blister). Killing a land on turn 2 unconditionally is just too strong. Try this:

Cursed Rain

Enchantment -- Aura
Enchant nonbasic land
Whenever enchanted land becomes tapped, choose one -- that land's controller loses 1 life; or that land's controller sacrifices enchanted land.

With this version, it's not too strong, since the opponent can still get one last use out of it. Alternately, if you want to cause a little damage first, you can do that. And it can be combined with cards like Icy Manipulator.

[Pin]

First off, judging a card by Legacy standards is wrong. Legacy has a VERY high power level.

If you look at the latest high-placing Legacy tournament decks they're made up primarily of recent cards. At the very least, they have a large percentage of recent cards. There are a few exceptions, of course. But, there are top-tier decks that are made up of cards I've never played yet, especially cards like Tarmogoyf.

Second, this is just flat-out better than Sinkhole (a card already overpowered) in two ways. A Sinkhole that ALSO does like 5-8 damage? Ridiculously overpowered, even if it is gold.

Sinkhole takes out one land for two mana of the same color. It's easier to cast. One dark ritual on the first turn and you have a one casting cost creature or artifact and your opponent has no more land. My card requires waiting to the second turn, if you're lucky enough to get both colors, dark ritual won't pay for it, and by that time your opponent has more options and more land. Does anyone put Sinkhole into top Legacy decks? Not that I know of.

To me, Legacy is the standard because it's designed to be all Magic cards, except for those that are broken, for ante, jokes, or which require physical dexterity. New cards are, to my mind, quickly displacing old cards in the format. Even if only a fairly small portion of recent cards would make it in it still shows that the recent cards are being designed to be powerful enough.

Why does this have the blue ability at all?

Well, as I said, I wanted it to be good enough to see play. Taking out a single land and doing a bit of damage is difficult to cost, because it's just not all that much of an effect at something like three mana. By the time you've got three mana to spend, you could be doing something more. Plus, if you draw this card in the mid to late game, it's useless unless your opponent is playing with a broken land like Academy. That being said, a card with this function would be a boon to Vintage because it would shut down broken lands like Tolarian Academy. In fact, I designed this card as an artifact and it could potentially allow the Academy to be taken off the restricted list as anyone could pack the artifact in their sideboard. But, Vintage is definitely not the focus, only a bonus.

Designing the card as an artifact also allows Wizards to make lands that have more powerful effects, more like Academy.
 

You do realize that kicker is optional, and so it doesn't "make it more difficult to cast", right?

It makes it more difficult to cast, with the kicker included because you're now playing three mana with a total of three different colors.

There's no reason this card needs to cantrip other than just blatantly powering it up, which is silly.

Having a series of disasters in a land, including flooding at the end, makes sense to me. It's also quite interesting from a flavor point of view to start with fire and end with water.

Cursed Rain

Enchantment -- Aura
Enchant nonbasic land
Whenever enchanted land becomes tapped, choose one -- that land's controller loses 1 life; or that land's controller sacrifices enchanted land.

With this version, it's not too strong, since the opponent can still get one last use out of it. Alternately, if you want to cause a little damage first, you can do that. And it can be combined with cards like Icy Manipulator.

It seems really weak to me. I doubt anyone would play it outside of low power formats. Is there a deck someone can build around this card that would justify printing it?

Since rain is water, shouldn't your card have blue?

[Pin]

Prototype artifact on similar lines:

Enervation Machine



1: Place an enervation counter on target land. It loses all abilities, including the ability to tap and untap, as long as the counter remains. Enervation Machine may only target one land at a time. If a new target is chosen, move the enervation counter.

This is more exciting, probably, than Holocaust because it is much less narrow. It opens up the game to more powerful land effects and allows most decks to run the card in their sideboard. Unfortunately, it loses the Cursed Land functionality, but that's not very strong anyway outside of multiplayer, I suppose.

[Phoenix888]

Pin, if you browse through the rest of the card creation forum you'll find that vintage/legacy playable cards are frowned upon as being too powerful.  If you're looking for acceptance of your card suggestion you may want to consider lowering the power level.  This is especially true in the case of land destruction.  Wizards avoids making powerful cards in that area because they realize that playing against a powerful LD deck is not an enjoyable experience.

[andrewpate]

Pin, if you browse through the rest of the card creation forum you'll find that vintage/legacy playable cards are frowned upon as being too powerful.

I don't think that's necessarily fair.  When Titanium Dragon came up with Manamorphose over a year before it came out, everyone seemed to like it.  And what about Twilight Tutor (B plus any other color, tutor up a card of a type to the color you paid), which went over fantastic?  The thing about it is that designing Eternal playables that aren't broken in lower-powered formats is very difficult.  Chalice of the Void, Gifts Ungiven, etc., these are cards that are very clever ways to shake up Vintage because the are acceptable in Standard, yet interact in some special way with the Vintage cardpool.

The alternative way to do it is just to ramp the in-a-vacuum power through the roof, like with Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf.  R&D has admitted that Tarmogoyf was a mistake, and for whatever reason people (me too!) really seem to like the way Dark Confidant plays.  At with no nonbasic clause, this would certainly be potentially usable in Legacy.  Is it Dark Confidant or Tarmogoyf?  Ask anyone who ever lost a game to Pirates, Karstenbot Babykiller, Moldy Hermit, or LD Ponza if they think this sounds like a fun way to play Magic.

[Pin]

The alternative way to do it is just to ramp the in-a-vacuum power through the roof, like with Dark Confidant and Tarmogoyf.  R&D has admitted that Tarmogoyf was a mistake, and for whatever reason people (me too!) really seem to like the way Dark Confidant plays.  At with no nonbasic clause, this would certainly be potentially usable in Legacy.  Is it Dark Confidant or Tarmogoyf?  Ask anyone who ever lost a game to Pirates, Karstenbot Babykiller, Moldy Hermit, or LD Ponza if they think this sounds like a fun way to play Magic.

Well, lots of recent cards other than Tarmogoyf are being used in Legacy decks. I took a 2 year break from Magic and now that I look at the latest top placing Legacy decks from various tournaments many of the decks have at least 40% cards that I'm not familiar with. So, there are plenty of cards being made that are strong enough to hold up outside of nerfed formats.

As for the "is this type of deck fun to play against comment", I don't think that's fair. Any deck is fun for the person playing it if they're winning, generally. Plus, it's fun to be challenged by any deck if you can beat it. What's better than beating someone with a deck you find annoying? I don't think Wizards should reduce the deck format options people have but expand them as much as possible. That allows creativity to come out and keeps things from getting stale.

But, thanks for your supportive comments. What do you guys think about the artifact idea? It could be played as hate in any sideboard which would allow Wizards to create more powerful land effects. I've just realized that the artifact would also allow Library of Alexandria to come off the Vintage restricted list. This artifact would be a great addition to the game if it's properly costed (not too high!, but also not too low).

Is it Dark Confidant or Tarmogoyf?

I don't think so. All you're doing is shutting down one land and dealing very slow damage. The kicker is what makes the card decent. At mid to late game, you can return the card to your hand or draw a card. Force of Will won't be able to nerf a deck built around this card. It will hurt blue Control, which is unfortunate, and could hurt Landstill, but every deck has vulnerabilities and new cards can be printed to improve those two formats. A land that can't be targeted by spells or effects will be immune to Holocaust and Enervation Machine.

[Pin]

Wizards avoids making powerful cards in that area because they realize that playing against a powerful LD deck is not an enjoyable experience.

Losing is never enjoyable, is it? What's the difference between getting pounded by Tarmogoyf every time you play against someone and playing LD deck? At least having another viable archetype adds variety. There is never a good argument against variety/options.

Way back when I had my cute 5 color deck destroyed by monoblack LD/discard. It wasn't pleasant, and losing never is. It was a wake-up call that told me my deck just wasn't fast enough. Losing cards and land and not being able to do anything is annoying, but so is combo (especially infinite), and being hit over and over by creatures. Winning is fun, losing isn't (except in multiplayer).

[Phoenix888]

Unfortunately, none of that changes the fact that land destruction only costing two mana with no drawback is too powerful.  Yes, I read the Sinkhole argument, and I'd venture to say that because Sinkhole exists, that just adds to the fact that something similar shouldn't be made.  8 Sinkhole.dec is a scary thought.

[Darkenslight]

Why not just make it or with the nonbasic?  This makes it more a card that you need to be aware of instead of a 'zOMG LDROOLS!!111eleven11!!!one!' card.  It's still somewhat strong with the massive influx of nonbasics, but not comepletely useless.

Recommended re-wording:

Mired Disaster
Ecnhantment - Aura
Enchant land

At the beginning of your upkeep, ~ deals 1 damage to enchanted land's controller. 

If the land is nonbasic, it gains 'when ~ or the enchanted land leaves play, remove the land from the game.'

[Pin]

Why not just make it or with the nonbasic?  This makes it more a card that you need to be aware of instead of a 'zOMG LDROOLS!!111eleven11!!!one!' card.  It's still somewhat strong with the massive influx of nonbasics, but not comepletely useless.

Recommended re-wording:

Mired Disaster
Ecnhantment - Aura
Enchant land

At the beginning of your upkeep, ~ deals 1 damage to enchanted land's controller. 

If the land is nonbasic, it gains 'when ~ or the enchanted land leaves play, remove the land from the game.'

So so weak. I give up.

Does anyone want to consider the artifact, since it's obvious that the enchantment is going to be nerfed beyond usability?

[Pin]

Sinkhole.dec is a scary thought.

Maybe, maybe not. There is Crucible. There are indestructible lands. There are elves. There are mana artifacts. Is there a Legacy tier-one LD deck? Do LD decks even get played at reasonably large tournaments outside of perhaps the first round? What about the other formats?

I think the fear of LD is overwhelming reason here. However, I suppose it would be possible to get rid of black altogether if we're creative with the flavor, because red likes to deal damage, too.

[Pin]

instead of a 'zOMG LDROOLS!!111eleven11!!!one!' card.

As the card is, it's narrow enough that another poster, like myself, isn't even sure it would see much play in Legacy.

Please explain, in detail, how it's so overpowered.

[andrewpate]

Does anyone want to consider the artifact, since it's obvious that the enchantment is going to be nerfed beyond usability?

The artifact:  is there a typo in one of the numbers there?  Ark of Blight costs more than twice as much mana as this, and for a weaker effect since it doesn't let you spend at instant speed to retroactively change your mind about which land you destroyed.  Two mana for LD is bad enough when it is in colors that at least have access to LD.  Why would we think this was better?

Turn 1:  Island, Cursecatcher.
Opp turn 1:  Swamp, Thoughtseize (sack Cursecatcher)
Turn 2:  Island, Enervation Machine, destroy their Swamp.
Opp turn 2:  Giltleaf Palace, go.
Turn 3:  Island, move counter to destroying Giltleaf Palace, pass turn with counter mana open.

Does this really read like a Standard game Wizards would ever allow to occur?

[Pin]

Does anyone want to consider the artifact, since it's obvious that the enchantment is going to be nerfed beyond usability?

The artifact:  is there a typo in one of the numbers there?  Ark of Blight costs more than twice as much mana as this, and for a weaker effect since it doesn't let you spend at instant speed to retroactively change your mind about which land you destroyed.  Two mana for LD is bad enough when it is in colors that at least have access to LD.  Why would we think this was better?

Turn 1:  Island, Cursecatcher.
Opp turn 1:  Swamp, Thoughtseize (sack Cursecatcher)
Turn 2:  Island, Enervation Machine, destroy their Swamp.
Opp turn 2:  Giltleaf Palace, go.
Turn 3:  Island, move counter to destroying Giltleaf Palace, pass turn with counter mana open.

Does this really read like a Standard game Wizards would ever allow to occur?

Well, it doesn't destroy the land. It just makes it inactive. There can only be one counter in play. So, for two mana you're shutting down one land. It costs a third mana to move the counter to a different land.

[EnialisLiadon]

Does anyone want to consider the artifact, since it's obvious that the enchantment is going to be nerfed beyond usability?

The artifact:  is there a typo in one of the numbers there?  Ark of Blight costs more than twice as much mana as this, and for a weaker effect since it doesn't let you spend at instant speed to retroactively change your mind about which land you destroyed.  Two mana for LD is bad enough when it is in colors that at least have access to LD.  Why would we think this was better?

Turn 1:  Island, Cursecatcher.
Opp turn 1:  Swamp, Thoughtseize (sack Cursecatcher)
Turn 2:  Island, Enervation Machine, destroy their Swamp.
Opp turn 2:  Giltleaf Palace, go.
Turn 3:  Island, move counter to destroying Giltleaf Palace, pass turn with counter mana open.

Does this really read like a Standard game Wizards would ever allow to occur?

Well, it doesn't destroy the land. It just makes it inactive. There can only be one counter in play. So, for two mana you're shutting down one land. It costs a third mana to move the counter to a different land.

For all intents and purposes, you're killing the land.  It can't be used for anything, so what difference does it make if it's in play or not?  It's essentially two-mana land-d for colorless.  I imagine it would be a better version of Rishadan Port, which had the "what deck doesn't want this" quality.  And then for a third spent mana, reaching the cost of fairly killing a single land, you can turn off another land if the original land is destroyed or in response to some spell or effect...or even if a better land comes into play.

[Nydaeli]

I think the remove-all-abilities effect could easily be simplified to just tapping the land and keeping it tapped.  Sure, it doesn't stop The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, but pretty much every other land ability is a tap activation.

I also think we're better off with a choice-based version - it leads to more interesting decisions, and is also easier to cost at 2cmc.  Here's my idea for a version based on Paralyze:

Cursed Rain
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Land
When Cursed Rain comes into play, tap enchanted land.
Enchanted land doesn't untap during its controller's untap step.
At the beginning of the upkeep of enchanted land's controller, that player may pay 2 life. If he or she does, untap the land.

[Pin]

Since so many people seem to want a card with rain in it, here's one:

Cursed Rain

Enchantment - Aura

Enchant Land

Target land becomes a basic swamp. When Cursed Rain comes into play, target land's controller chooses to either remove the land from the game or lose 1 life each upkeep.

Kicker : If Cursed Rain would be removed from play, return it to your hand

[Pin]

For all intents and purposes, you're killing the land.

No, it's made inert. It's not removed from play or from the game

It can't be used for anything, so what difference does it make if it's in play or not?

Land tax, for one thing. It can be destroyed by Armageddon and Strip Mine. Et cetera. If the land's controller has a card that allows him/her to destroy a permanent under his/her control to do something, the land could be destroyed for that purpose. The land's controller could use a card like Boomerang to return the land to his/her hand.

It's essentially two-mana land-d for colorless.

Yes. Do you think the artifact should cost 2 instead of 1?

I imagine it would be a better version of Rishadan Port, which had the "what deck doesn't want this" quality.

I don't see all that many decks with it, certainly not all of them.

But, there are cards that make it into most sideboards, which is not necessarily a bad thing. If a card like this one can be used in any deck, practically, then Wizards can print powerful land abilities, knowing that they won't become out of control because there is effective/versatile/cheap hate available. This would lead to there being more exciting lands instead of the usual crop of "worse than dual lands".

And then for a third spent mana, reaching the cost of fairly killing a single land, you can turn off another land if the original land is destroyed or in response to some spell or effect...or even if a better land comes into play.

But it only neutralizes one land at a time.

[T00L]

Wizards loathes even printing 3-cost LD, and they carefully monitor the number of such spells available in a given format.

And, is there, for instance, a land destruction and/or mana denial deck that's seen tournament play in the last five years? Have any of them won a tournament?

Yes the deck was called U/R Magnivore it did very well in the 2006 Team Standard PTQ Season. It was a very good deck. This deck was a perfect example of when to much mana denial was in a standard format. Also see the Owling mine deck from the same PTQ season.

[Matt]

The whole 'rain' thing was just a placeholder name, it doesn't have to stay.

[Darkenslight]

instead of a 'zOMG LDROOLS!!111eleven11!!!one!' card.

As the card is, it's narrow enough that another poster, like myself, isn't even sure it would see much play in Legacy.

Please explain, in detail, how it's so overpowered.

OK, for two mana (on the original card), you neuter and effectively remove the land from play AND damage them.  Oh, and if you're lucky enough to play blue, you can either keep on doing it or draw a card.  On a B/R card, you'd need either triple hybrid or four colored mana at least.

Looking back, my design was overly weak, too.  Let's try this again:

Cursed Cleansing   
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant nonbasic land

If enchanted land is tapped for mana, instead Cursed Cleansing deals 2 damage to that land's controller.

If enchanted land or Cursed Cleansing are removed from play, remove that land from the game.

When Cursed Cleansing is put into a graveyard from anywhere, you may sacrifice a mountain or swamp.   If you do, return Cursed Cleansing to its owner's hand.

Is this still too strong, with the 'sac: eturn' ability?

[Pin]

So, you're paying three mana to turn a land into the equivalent of Ancient Tomb, only without the drawback of colorless, but without the additional colorless bonus mana. Seems too weak to me, plus it's not doing anything I set out to do with this card.

These are the effects I'm interested in here:

Most important:

1. Suppress the land's abilities.

Secondary importance:

2. Deal damage per upkeep to land's owner as long as the enchanted land remains in play.

I am not interested in turning this into a "if opponent taps he/she takes damage" mechanic.

Like a true Holocaust, the land is nuked. It still exists, but only as a burned out shell that can't do anything but harm its owner. It is cursed, like Cursed Land. If there is a nuclear holocaust, radiation persists, so in this flavor it's this sort of persistence of damage that does the damage to the controller. This is why I had red in it. The art I used showed the aftermath of a nuclear-type blast.

[andrewpate]

That goal is perfectly respectable.  It's flavorful, evocative, and a fairly unexplored design space.  However, you must acknowledge that it's a strong combination of effects and it must be costed appropriately.  Pillory of the Sleepless is much worse than "enchanted creature is now blank, and its controller takes 1 damage every upkeep," and it costs 3 mana.  Land destruction costs more than creature destruction.  Why, Poison the Well destroys a land and deals 2 damage ever, yet it costs 4!

Many cards of this type simply combine the two mana costs.  See Frenzied Tilling, Absorb, Lightning Helix or Mystic Snake.  These cards are expensive but get by on doing things that normally take two cards all with just one.  Wizards has a long history of making these.  By this well-established design philosophy, your "blank a land and deal 1 every turn" would cost .  We are saying that you could probably discount this heavily, down to a converted mana cost of around 4, or 3 if it can only target a nonbasic, in order to increase its playability.  But Wizards just plain is not going to introduce Arguably Better Than Sinkhole into Standard.

[Darkenslight]

So, you're paying three mana to turn a land into the equivalent of Ancient Tomb, only without the drawback of colorless, but without the additional colorless bonus mana. Seems too weak to me, plus it's not doing anything I set out to do with this card.

These are the effects I'm interested in here:

Most important:

1. Suppress the land's abilities.

Secondary importance:

2. Deal damage per upkeep to land's owner as long as the enchanted land remains in play.

Note the replacement clause in the second card I designed; instead ~ deals 2 damage to that land's controller.

You effectively blank the land AND deal two damage to the land's controller.

[Anusien]

This card is way too complicated.  Three separate abilities on one uncommon or common is making things way more wordy than it needs to be.

What about just:

{} - 1BB
Enchantment
At the beginning of enchanted land's owner's upkeep, that player loses one life.
Enchanted land is a Swamp.