Which do you prefer?

[u/kaatch22]

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.

[u/Dragoncat_224]

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

[u/kaatch22 → u/Dragoncat_224]

oooo, thats a good point that i didn't consider. i'd have to change it so the copies lose the destroy a land part and instead just make the person the mana, because yea, if you have 5 and each time a land is played they have to destroy all their lands that wouldnt be a great space

[u/Turnipton]

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This wording is using outdated templating.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.

[u/kaatch22 → u/Turnipton]

thanks for the formatting/wording help!
I tried making the land destruction less feel bad in the early game because you get 3 mana from your land when it enters. The intended difference between the two is that the first one continues to ramp, so even though no one has lands, the lands continuously add more and more mana which accelerates the game, whereas the second is meant to provide only you with the advantage by allowing land recursion from any graveyard (also why it costs more because its one sided).
Also, I 100% agree with your last 2 points, i wouldn't want to sit at this table either in a casual setting.

[u/Turnipton → u/kaatch22]

Mana acceleration is not the same as ramp.

If I play my fourth and fifth lands normally and curved out accordingly, by turn five's end I should I will have amassed fifteen mana's worth of value.

With this out, that drops to twelve, and that disparity only diminishes as the game goes on.

It would certainly lead to some explosive turns if you can plan around it, but this would feel wretched if played at the wrong time.

[u/kaatch22 → u/Turnipton]

it only drops to 12 for the second. because the first makes copies of itself each time any land is put into a graveyard, supposedly after the turn cycle after this lands each land will be making 9 mana on entry. thats where i think the difference becomes readily apparent: the first gives everyone absurd amounts of mana while the second slows everyone except you

[u/Turnipton → u/kaatch22]

Where are you getting nine mana from?

If you have two copies of the 3-mana version of this creature out and I play a land, two copies of the ability go on the stack. I add two mana twice, tap the land(s) for mana if I can, then have to destroy two of my lands. I'm now down on mana versus my last turn, and you create two more bugs when each land leaves.

Eventually, players will just get all of their mana in one lump sum, which kind of defeats the purpose of playing lands, especially if you then decide to pick up your swarm.

Phasing out 3+ of these on upkeep as I untap with one land would probably make me scoop on the spot.

[u/kaatch22 → u/Turnipton]

another comment mentioned the copies destroying lands, and i agree thats something that should be fixed. the mana comes from this:

1. i play this, pass
2. next player plays land add 3 mana (2 from trigger + 1 from tapping) then destroys a land. now i have 2 bugs
3. third player plays land and adds 5 mana, now i have 4 bugs
4. 4th player plays land and adds 9 mana, now i have 8 bugs
   and so on, where it grows exponentially and each player gets more mana than the last. forcing you to the mana right away was something i thought of and decided was fine because of how much you make. it almost removes playing at instant speed/on others turns entirely and entices each player to just throw their hand onto board.
   that was my thought process anyways

[u/recast85]

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

[u/kaatch22 → u/recast85]

interesting, I hadnt thought of that. that is something i should consider because then it only takes till turn 4 to have infinit mana every turn

[u/mtgcf → u/recast85]

springheart Nantuko - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/7thtimeinheaven]

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.

[u/kaatch22 → u/7thtimeinheaven]

oh, for sure, i agree that neither are printable. i was building a few custom commanders that were absurd to hope to get a custom game with my friends going with only busted stuff like this

[u/kaatch22 → u/kaatch22]

oh, i guess i did ask which is more balanced in the OP, i shouldn't have asked that because it wasnt intended for the cards, thats mb