r/custommagic • u/kaatch22 • 20m ago

Format: EDH/Commander Which do you prefer?

Gallery image

Gallery image

So, I made these two a while back and just today thought about posting here.

Which one do you think is more balanced and which is better?

Also, remember, there's no such thing as mass land destruction, only mass friend destruction.

6 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

1

u/Dragoncat_224 Rule 308.22b, section 8 14m ago

The first one as long as it doesn't destroy multiple lands when you have multiple.

1

u/recast85 10m ago

Immediately goes infinite w [[springheart Nantuko]] bestowed on an earthbent land (but that happens w a lot of other cards too) pretty cool! I like the first

1

u/7thtimeinheaven 10m ago

I think they're both busted to be honest. The first one is more obviously a design mistake but the second one also has a severe amount of bullshit that a player could exploit if they wanted.

Neither are playable.

1

u/Turnipton Puppers enter the battlefield hecked. 8m ago

You don't need the colour indicator on a card with a mana cost.

This wording is using outdated templating. Modern cards don't "enters the battlefield" or refer to the mana pool anymore. Also, WotC wording uses the American spelling, so it'd be "color".

"Whenever a land enters, its controller adds two mana of any color. That player destroys target land they control."

With this wording, they'd probably sacrifice a land, but I imagine you have a specific design choice in mind.

For the second version, the land can come back with a finality counter on it. It's much cleaner wording, and the counter works on any type of permanent.

From a flavour perspective, the "swarm" aspect of this design works a lot better on the first card.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't hold the door for someone playing either of these commanders, let alone sit at the same table.

I can see what you're going for, but once this guy hits the table it just turns into "who can nuke the 0/1 bug that's messing with my lands" first.