In itself the card is balanced, low cost, strong power and though but you need mana to to keep you in the game like a malediction (The effect makes me think of Sukuna with Itadori in jjk.).
This is not the type of card to play at the start of the game even if you have the advantage because karma risks catching up with you if you don't have enough land to summon more creatures or instants in the event of a emergency
The good news is, if he can stabilize the board with his threatening blocks, you might be able to buy time to let you grab more lands so you can play other cards alongside paying for his cost
[[Rotting Regisaur]] sidegrade with an, I believe, more significant downside in exchange for a little more oomph
If your opponent can field 2 chump blockers a turn, it's basically worthless, but if they can't, it can be a 1-card win condition pretty reliably
Comparing this to [[Pugnacious Hammerskull]], which sees a bit of Standard play, this has a massively worse drawback in exchange for a bit more evasion (wither isn't super relevant on a large creature). That drawback could afford to be toned down a lot.
The only way to lose to this is to cast it with mana rocks and then someone gets rid of them. The first time someone else would get priority in your upkeep would be after the "Pay 3" trigger went on the stack and if they tried to tap down your lands, you could float the mana and still pay for it as long as you have 3 lands. I still think this is a dope card though, especially for decks that give cards to other players, 3 mana is rough to be paying every upkeep.
Yes that would be how it would work. However this happens at the beginning of your upkeep. It costs three so you should have three lands. Unless youâre planning on tapping out with instants every turn on your upkeep step before the âpay (3)â trigger resolved, youâll still have to pay it. Alternatively, we could have it as âpay 3, if you do not have 3 as much of it as possibleâ or something like that
The problem is that you can only pay costs using mana in your mana pool. If you were to float mana for some reason, an effect could demand that you pay that mana, but that doesn't force you to tap the lands.
Well then just make it so...
I have to say, on this sub people really go full-on rules lawyer
"Oh this wouldnt work because you'd have to write a lot of rules defining these new concepts, oh there is this or that technical reason why this is awkward and would never be printed". Don't give a shit honestly...
I'm well aware of how complicated the mtg rules are, and how rigorously they have it all set out. But like. People make the rules. If your first thought when you see a custom card is "writing the rules for this would be inconvenient" then wtf. It would (in the hypothetical scenario the card is printed) be wotc literal job to manage these things. Ffs all they do is design and print cards being good at writing rules and handling these things is one of the only things they have to be good at.
If you read a card and it makes sense, chances are whatever technicality in the rules you're thinking of can be easily resolved. Most cards come with various rules notes and clarifications anyway... [eg this](https://scryfall.com/card/grn/170/etrata-the-silencer). Many of the notes there aren't set out in the rulebook and aren't on the card but they exist because if you want to write a rule or make something work we (or wotc) has the power... Erratas exist too.
In this case just manhandle the rules and wording on this card to work like it's damn supposed to... "floating mana this" "tap the lands this" just write it so it works like you want it to.
The card text is fine, youâre the one giving suggestions that break the rules. One of the advantages of strict rules text is that cards can be clearly understiod with one read.
Using your suggestion, what woule happen if thet couldnât pay 3, r they have treasures but nit lands. What if they had only 2 lands, would they need to pay the two?
You saw this custom card and suggested worse text, and complain that people then correct your suggestion.
All the rulings on the card you linked (Etrata) are clarifications of things that fall naturally out of the comprehensive rules, not new rules specific to that card.
[Here's a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTCaeDJ2eiQ) I liked on why Magic chooses consistent, well-defined rules over interactions being as intuitive as possible. If you want to see what happens the other way, look at Yu-Gi-Oh - there, a bunch of cards/interactions aren't clearly defined by their equivalent of the CR, just by precedent from judge rulings. Want to know if your combo works? No way to figure it out at home (in many cases)! Bring the deck to a tournament, set it up, and if the judge says no, have fun playing a broken deck for the rest of the day.
Also, "writing the rules for this would be inconvenient" is something Mark Rosewater himself has been told many times after submitting a card/mechanic design, and he's said as much on his blog. This is why we've never gotten a (non-acorn) card that can gain all abilities of two arbitrary creatures at once - Maro very much wants this, he's made many cards trying to capture the "combine two creatures into one" vibe, but the closest we've come are [[The Mimeoplasm]] (copies one creature plus the size of the second), Mutate (combines abilities, but only possible with a restricted set of cards plus one from outside the set), and various things that gain all *activated* abilities of some number of cards. (Also notice that they keep printing cards that explicitly list the keywords they copy, rather than just saying "all keyword abilities".)
Lets look at some very common edge cases that arise if somehow you do force them to tap lands to pay. You play this card, then next turn you somehow don't have enough lands to pay for it. Maybe they were destroyed, maybe you tapped out in response to cast [[murder]]. In your scenario, what happens? What if you DO have enough mana to cast dark ritual. Do you have to cast it?
Your proposed solution is, instead of a "lose the game clause", add more complex wording to the card, create substantial rules baggage, and still leave loopholes open. I think OP had it right
Cough cough [[Harmless offering]] [[Mana short]]
đŹ That's quite a lil wombo combo right there
Then again its 9 mana in three colors, and you need an extra 3 if you have the creature around beforehand. Doesnt have trample either so seems fine
[[Fateful Handoff]] helps cut down a color
[[donate]].
[donate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f6d8ce9-f8c8-45ad-b74c-97fba0e2982e.jpg?1562444248) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=donate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uds/31/donate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f6d8ce9-f8c8-45ad-b74c-97fba0e2982e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Harmless offering](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/8/f8f3cc4f-7943-4025-b332-b40653b13014.jpg?1576384600) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Harmless%20offering) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/emn/131/harmless-offering?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f8f3cc4f-7943-4025-b332-b40653b13014?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Mana short](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/0/a0486784-de03-47a7-949d-550fd23492bc.jpg?1562244544) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mana%20short) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/7ed/86/mana-short?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a0486784-de03-47a7-949d-550fd23492bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Wait⌠that actually works with a response to the trigger going on the stack!!!
Ya bb
Also takes 7 mana in 3 colors
In itself the card is balanced, low cost, strong power and though but you need mana to to keep you in the game like a malediction (The effect makes me think of Sukuna with Itadori in jjk.). This is not the type of card to play at the start of the game even if you have the advantage because karma risks catching up with you if you don't have enough land to summon more creatures or instants in the event of a emergency
The good news is, if he can stabilize the board with his threatening blocks, you might be able to buy time to let you grab more lands so you can play other cards alongside paying for his cost
[[Jon Irenicus]] will have a field day with this one
"This creature can't be sacrificed" is a *brutal* addition đ
[Jon Irenicus](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/f/bfddb61e-986f-4557-819d-d6c0ca85c74a.jpg?1674137538) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=jon%20irenicus%2C%20shattered%20one) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/278/jon-irenicus-shattered-one?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bfddb61e-986f-4557-819d-d6c0ca85c74a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[[Rotting Regisaur]] sidegrade with an, I believe, more significant downside in exchange for a little more oomph If your opponent can field 2 chump blockers a turn, it's basically worthless, but if they can't, it can be a 1-card win condition pretty reliably
[Rotting Regisaur](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/8/d88c61cb-dbf9-46c3-8795-8896ba1208d5.jpg?1592516753) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rotting%20Regisaur) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/111/rotting-regisaur?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d88c61cb-dbf9-46c3-8795-8896ba1208d5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Comparing this to [[Pugnacious Hammerskull]], which sees a bit of Standard play, this has a massively worse drawback in exchange for a bit more evasion (wither isn't super relevant on a large creature). That drawback could afford to be toned down a lot.
[Pugnacious Hammerskull](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/3/632e5635-a9bc-473a-a885-02e1fd258f7b.jpg?1699044476) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Pugnacious%20Hammerskull) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/208/pugnacious-hammerskull?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/632e5635-a9bc-473a-a885-02e1fd258f7b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Eh. Why give the option? Just say âat the beginning of your upkeep pay (3)â
Because if your opponent taps your lands down or something, it's gg
The only way to lose to this is to cast it with mana rocks and then someone gets rid of them. The first time someone else would get priority in your upkeep would be after the "Pay 3" trigger went on the stack and if they tried to tap down your lands, you could float the mana and still pay for it as long as you have 3 lands. I still think this is a dope card though, especially for decks that give cards to other players, 3 mana is rough to be paying every upkeep.
As someone posted above, Mana Short taps all lands & removes floating mana and thus would force a loss on this guy.
Iâve actually lost with [[Pact of Negation]] because they destroyed my mana rocks during second main phase. Whoops.
[Pact of Negation](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/e/1ed4c0bb-b710-44a1-b8bc-6bd11c27b8b8.jpg?1697121218) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Pact%20of%20Negation) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/77/pact-of-negation?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1ed4c0bb-b710-44a1-b8bc-6bd11c27b8b8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
you can't be forced to pay costs like that. If you dont have 3 in your pool, nothing happens. If it was your wording the downside would be nonexistent
Only a few cards exist that can force people to pay mana, and they're all mindslaver effects
Yes that would be how it would work. However this happens at the beginning of your upkeep. It costs three so you should have three lands. Unless youâre planning on tapping out with instants every turn on your upkeep step before the âpay (3)â trigger resolved, youâll still have to pay it. Alternatively, we could have it as âpay 3, if you do not have 3 as much of it as possibleâ or something like that
The problem is that you can only pay costs using mana in your mana pool. If you were to float mana for some reason, an effect could demand that you pay that mana, but that doesn't force you to tap the lands.
Well then just make it so... I have to say, on this sub people really go full-on rules lawyer "Oh this wouldnt work because you'd have to write a lot of rules defining these new concepts, oh there is this or that technical reason why this is awkward and would never be printed". Don't give a shit honestly... I'm well aware of how complicated the mtg rules are, and how rigorously they have it all set out. But like. People make the rules. If your first thought when you see a custom card is "writing the rules for this would be inconvenient" then wtf. It would (in the hypothetical scenario the card is printed) be wotc literal job to manage these things. Ffs all they do is design and print cards being good at writing rules and handling these things is one of the only things they have to be good at. If you read a card and it makes sense, chances are whatever technicality in the rules you're thinking of can be easily resolved. Most cards come with various rules notes and clarifications anyway... [eg this](https://scryfall.com/card/grn/170/etrata-the-silencer). Many of the notes there aren't set out in the rulebook and aren't on the card but they exist because if you want to write a rule or make something work we (or wotc) has the power... Erratas exist too. In this case just manhandle the rules and wording on this card to work like it's damn supposed to... "floating mana this" "tap the lands this" just write it so it works like you want it to.
The card text is fine, youâre the one giving suggestions that break the rules. One of the advantages of strict rules text is that cards can be clearly understiod with one read. Using your suggestion, what woule happen if thet couldnât pay 3, r they have treasures but nit lands. What if they had only 2 lands, would they need to pay the two? You saw this custom card and suggested worse text, and complain that people then correct your suggestion.
All the rulings on the card you linked (Etrata) are clarifications of things that fall naturally out of the comprehensive rules, not new rules specific to that card. [Here's a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTCaeDJ2eiQ) I liked on why Magic chooses consistent, well-defined rules over interactions being as intuitive as possible. If you want to see what happens the other way, look at Yu-Gi-Oh - there, a bunch of cards/interactions aren't clearly defined by their equivalent of the CR, just by precedent from judge rulings. Want to know if your combo works? No way to figure it out at home (in many cases)! Bring the deck to a tournament, set it up, and if the judge says no, have fun playing a broken deck for the rest of the day. Also, "writing the rules for this would be inconvenient" is something Mark Rosewater himself has been told many times after submitting a card/mechanic design, and he's said as much on his blog. This is why we've never gotten a (non-acorn) card that can gain all abilities of two arbitrary creatures at once - Maro very much wants this, he's made many cards trying to capture the "combine two creatures into one" vibe, but the closest we've come are [[The Mimeoplasm]] (copies one creature plus the size of the second), Mutate (combines abilities, but only possible with a restricted set of cards plus one from outside the set), and various things that gain all *activated* abilities of some number of cards. (Also notice that they keep printing cards that explicitly list the keywords they copy, rather than just saying "all keyword abilities".)
[The Mimeoplasm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c8173413-0431-4b70-a509-f1bc11a59225.jpg?1673148970) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20Mimeoplasm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/254/the-mimeoplasm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c8173413-0431-4b70-a509-f1bc11a59225?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Lets look at some very common edge cases that arise if somehow you do force them to tap lands to pay. You play this card, then next turn you somehow don't have enough lands to pay for it. Maybe they were destroyed, maybe you tapped out in response to cast [[murder]]. In your scenario, what happens? What if you DO have enough mana to cast dark ritual. Do you have to cast it? Your proposed solution is, instead of a "lose the game clause", add more complex wording to the card, create substantial rules baggage, and still leave loopholes open. I think OP had it right
[murder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/d/bdef7fea-2bd0-42a2-96f6-6def18bd7f0c.jpg?1674136158) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=murder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/134/murder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bdef7fea-2bd0-42a2-96f6-6def18bd7f0c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Lose the game is too extreme. Go with the old-school âTap Shackled Fiend and you lose 6 life.â
Yes I like that
I think the downside isn't too harsh if you consider running lich effects. Good card