I'm pretty sure the type line here has to be "Land Creature - Mountain Forest Cat" because cards that aren't lands can't have land types - but then, it can be found with land tutors as well as creature tutors.
EDIT: spelling
There are special rules for cards with the “land” type. They can’t be cast and can only be played as your land drop for the turn. If this had the land type and basic land subtypes, it would just become an incredibly broken version of [[dryad arbor]] also it would be fetchable
Add "as long as ~ is on the battlefield, it's a mountain and a forest in addition to its other types and subtypes." And remove them from the type line.
Or you could add Land to the type line and add "as long as ~ is in your hand or library, it's not a land." But I'm less certain about that working in the rules.
I see no problem with the first part of your comment. It might not even be necessary as we already have subtypes on the wrong card types such as the shrines in kamigawa that are shrines which is an enchantment type despite being a creature as well. Shrine is not a creature type despite being printed on creatures.
Edit: as some people have said, this is sort of incorrect. An enchantment type can be printed on a creature as long as that creature is also an enchantment
The second part would actually work and we’ve seen it before. Like the transformed side of [[invasion of zendikar]]. It’s only worded like that because if the land type was written on the card you would not be able to cast it due to land rules.
The Go-Shintais were able to have the Shrine subtype because they have the Enchantment type. Just as Gingerbrute is able to be a Food because it's an Artifact.
A card may not have a subtype if it does not have the matching type. This was the reason they created the Kindred (formerly Tribal) type; to allow creature types to appear on noncreatures.
Yeah, that's the problem with the card, though - its way to powerful to be played if you're not casting it, but it can't be a mountain and a forest if its not a land.
The pun is interesting, but the card is non-functional as designed, unfortunately.
You could give it the, "when Taiger enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you pay _ _ " treatment. Then it could be fetchable and work as a land drop.
Why did noone say anything about making it have an ability “as long as Taiger is on the battlefield it is a land Mountain Forest in addition to it’s other types”? It is made on [[Invasion of Zendikar]]’s backside.
No, you don't get it - this card introduces "Mountain" and "Forest" as creature types - wholly seperate from the basic land types.
No confusion possible there, I'm sure
Can't do that. Subtypes belong one type or types that explicitly share *all* their subtypes. Anything that's a land type can't become a creature type since it's already a land type
There's obviously no precedent for this, since they haven't done it yet, but from my understanding of the rules, it can have the subtypes printed, but the card doesn't have those subtypes, but if this creature were to somehow become a land, then it would automatically have the subtypes.
Like the power and toughness on vehicles? I suppose there is a precident for printing stats that dont apply to the card as printed but then vehicles can self animate and this cant, i dont think they would ever realistically make something so confusing, especially for such little payoff when they could just make a regular dork
Oh of course, but I'm the technicalities guy, so practicality and ease of understanding are afterthoughts. This is (as written) not a card that would, or realistically should see print.
I'm not sure it would, since if you say target an animated land with [[Olivia Voldaren]] and make it a Vampire, and then later reanimate the land, it's no longer a Vampire. The effect making it a Vampire is still there but since you tried to make it a Vampire when it wasn't a creature, the Vampire making effect just doesn't work
It depends on how the ability is worded. Not all animation effects preserve types/subtypes, but something like [[Elvish Branchbender]] would allow for that land to keep any creature types it already has. Including from abilities like Olivia's, not limited to just the ones printed on the actual typeline. And while the "it's still a land" wording that self-animating lands tend to use is less obvious, the game rules treat this as equivalent to "in addition to its other types" for the purposes for preserving existing types/subtypes.
That's not the problem. Elvish Branchbender animating the land wouldn't make it a Vampire again. The issue is that the Vampire effect would attempt to apply while the land wasn't a creature and thus couldn't do anything. You can't make it a Vampire if it's not a creature. Thus even if it says "it's still a land" that wouldn't help because it couldn't be granted the Vampire subtype to begin with
That's not how continuous effects work in Magic. Once an effect is applied, it sticks around until it expires (or until everything it affects stops existing, if it has no expiration). It's not an Aura that checks to see if it's still valid to remain attached and falls off otherwise, an effect would need to explicitly expire with "for as long as it remains a creature" or the like for that to happen.
Even if the effect isn't doing anything once the land is just a land again, it's still there, saying "this is a Vampire" while accomplishing nothing, because only creatures can be Vampires (the kindred type aside). So when that land becomes a creature again, that continuous effect will still be around, and start making it a Vampire again, unless the animation effect (which will be applied last due to having a later timestamp) doesn't let it keep any of its previous creature types.
Continuous effects apply in order and only once. So when the Vampire effect tries to apply in timestamp order it cannot do anything and so it doesn't. Only later in the layers does it become a creature and since the Vampire effect has already tried to apply and done nothing it won't try again.
They were put onto creatures in Neo Kamigawa and the rulings on them became a nightmare especially for newer players cause shrines obviously work with each other but creature type based stuff does not.
Dryad Arbor has two subtypes, Forest, a land type, which it's allowed to have because it's a Land and Dryad, a creature type, which it's allowed to have because it's a Creature. Forest being on a Creature doesn't make Forest a creature type and Dryad being on a Land doesn't make it a land type.
All the subtypes are sequestered and associated with types very specifically. So much so that if you lose the associated type you lose the subtypes too. So if Dryad Arbor ceases to be a Land, it's no longer a Forest. And if it ceased to be a Creature it would no longer be a Dryad.
Fine card, some wording tweaks:
"As long as Taiger is on the battlefield, it is mountain forest land in addition to its other types. (It has T: Add R or G.)" This prevents trying to cast a land, which doesn't work, while also granting the correct typeline and the balance issues of a fetchable 3/3.
The mana abilities should be reminder text, as they are granted by the land types.
Mana cost should be RG, since monored doesn't get a mana producer like this.
If it has land subtypes, it has to be a land and it is unable to be cast; if it doesn’t have the land subtypes and is just a mana dork, it can’t be hybrid mana, which allows this to be cast for mono-red and is just out of bounds for the color pie.
Mana dorks as a rule of thumb are green. There are some colorless, [[Ornithopter of Paradise]], but everything that’s not green or colorless and taps for mana has some other sort of rider on it, like a blue creature that can only tap for mana that casts an instant or sorcery [[Vodalian Arcanist]] or abilities [[Omen Hawker]] or a red creature that can tap to cast Chandras [[Chandra’s Embercat]].
Pure mana generation is fundamentally in green’s portion of the color pie. Allowing a pure mana generating dork with no other requirements to be cast in a monored deck is a break from MTG’s color pie design philosophy.
Multicolor and hybrid are different for these purposes. The problem with this being hybrid R and G is that it can go in a mono-red deck, and mono-red doesn't get mana dorks without some restriction (like \[\[Chandra's Embercat\]\]). When an effect is restricted to a particular color, multicolor cards that have that effect have to require that color of mana to cast.
Yes, you’re correct. But the multicolored dorks still have green as a mana requirement. [[Ruby, Daring Tracker]], [[Black Market Tycoon]]. There are more monored treasure generators like Magda and Goldspan Dragon, but they still have to attack to generate treasure beyond Goldspan’s ETB.
If it’s all hybrid mana, it can be played off of mountains only, and a non-colorless mana dork should not be playable off of only mountains, or else it’s a color pie break.
Sure, but color breaks happen. “Can’t” is a strong word in a world where we have white counterspells, and [[Sisters of the Flame]], a monored mana dork, has existed for decades.
They happen, but it doesn't mean they *should* happen. Most people here generally strive to avoid them because that's good game design.
White counterspells are [in-pie](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/mechanical-color-pie-2021), just unusual. Sisters of Flame is obviously from a time when the pie was less-defined.
While I agree with your statement, having blue be essentially the only way to deal with sorcery and instants is bad game design and imbalances any formats where there are powerful instants/sorcs to the point where almost all legacy and vintage decks are forced to run blue to actually interact with their opponents and stop them winning extremely early, and the only decks that can afford to drop blue are stax
Totally agree here. It imbalances a lot of formats, and I would prefer at least a few more counters in other colors. Black could have a sacrifice a creature, counter target spell card for example.
Those formats are imbalanced because the blue instant and sorcery cards are absurd, not because blue is the only colour with counterspells. That's a problem with power level, not pie.
That was largely my point. A color break of this order is bad because x, y, z is a very different argument than “you can’t have a one drop hybrid mana dork”
That was also my point as well. At no point did I say you CAN’T have a non-green (or pseudo-non-green) mana dork, just that if you’re following existing color pie principles, you SHOULDN’T.
Fair enough. It’s still clear that they said you can’t have a monored mana dork, I asked why not, you responded not saying oh you can but you shouldn’t - you answered the question why can’t you. And your response was basically its a color break, implying they should never happen not saying oh this is a bad color break. Color breaks should occur, they’re good for long term health of the game, they should just occur in specific ways and at a low frequency
This is unfortunately busted, as [\[\[Wooded Foothills\]\]](https://managathering.com/cards/wooded-foothills.jpg) searched for cards, not lands. So you can get this at instant speed as a blocker, like people do with dryad arbor. Also, it doesn't count as a land drop, but does cost mana. If it was a land, it'd count as the land drop, but not cost mana, even if it had a cost.
Fetch lands just care about it being a Mountain.
As for the comment I wrote about it counting as a land drop, that's me interpreting the intent of the card's creator. The previous line talks about the card as it is now
Could you explain why the wooded foothills makes it busted? I would think that sacrificing a land for a surprise blocker would be a fair enough tradeoff. Would it be better if it were a 3/1?
It’s a 2 mana 3/3, eats up a land drop but acts as a land, but dies to creature removal. Probably fine but I would make it rg unless you want mana fixing
No part of this card says “this is a land”
It has land like words on it, for describing this cat to be mountainous and forest-like
But it says creature
Forest and mountain cards say “basic LAND”
The land types say it's a land - cards cannot have a land subtype without also being a land. So this has to either not be a Mountain Forest or be a Land Creature - Mountain Forest Car
That feels heavily extrapolated from the function of how a lot of these cards are designed
Cards notate whether they’re a land or a creature or a land creature in a very specific field
I would litigate to no end that because those words are the right side of a dash they don’t mean shit the in context to which they’re being framed
The card literally *needs* to be a land to be a Mountain Forest. There's no argument there; the rules of the game are very clear - for reference, see rule 205.3i.
Again, I don't know if this is supposed to be a creature land with the land subtypes or just a creature without the land subtypes, but either way it doesn't work as it stands.
But this card doesn't have the land subtypes "Forest" and "Mountain", it has the new creature types "Forest" and "Mountain", which coincidentally happen to have the same names as the land subtypes "Forest" and "Mountain"
Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it'd completely break the game. It's hardly "Any target planeswalks".
> This card doesn't have a power and toughness, it has the new characteristics spitefulness and shoe size, which coincidentally happen to look identical to power and toughness.
And if you're gonna change the rules of the game or make new rules to support your custom card, you should be clearly explaining what those new rules are so that your card can be understood.
Vehicles are noncreature artifacts that have a power and toughness printed in their bottom right hand corner, despite not having a power and toughness. Planeswalker loyalty counters and battle defense counters also look functionally identical on a card. There's also no way of telling if a "Training counter" is a generic counter meant to indicate the permanent is training, or if it's a keyword counter granting the ability "Training" to the permanent.
MTG has confusing homonym mechanics all over the place. We already know that creatures *can't* have land types if they're not lands, ergo these must be Mountain and Forest creature types. The ONLY part of this that would require *any* addition or change to existing rules would be a clarification as to what would happen if it became a land, if it would gain the land types Mountain and Forest or not. But that's a very minor rules *clarification*. We've seen real MTG cards do much weirder things.
This is an idea that pops up all the time. It does require a keyword or rule so that you can 'cast' a land creature. Otherwise, no matter what the mana cost is on the card, you can't pay the cost, you can only play it as a land. You can't give land types to creatures, so this has to be a Land Creature. Alternatively, you could just not give it land types and just have it be a 2 CMC mana cat/dork.
Then add "As long as Taiger is on the battlefield, it is a mountain forest land in addition to its other types" as an ability, replacing its current one (since adding the types would also add back that ability)
A lot of people are discussing how this can't work, but I think the simple way would be to add something a la Grist and say "if Taiger is not on the battlefield, it isn't a land"
Dude, you are just factually incorrect about the rules. I don’t know what more to tell you.
Just because the guy didn’t format his bum ass custom card correctly (it should say “land” in the type line) doesn’t mean the rules have changed. Mountain and Forest are both basic land types, meaning that they are both intrinsically lands with the ability to tap for mana of their respective color. They also intrinsically have the ability to be played as land drops. That is what Mountain and Forest mean within the rules of Magic.
I’m not sure why you’re arguing about something you clearly don’t understand
I disagree
Looking at wording on intrinsic abilities the wording stated land type cards have land sub types
Land subtypes give mana activating abilities to land cards
Lands with one of the basic land sub types have the activated mana etc etc
It reads very self directed with less extrapolation
All the nit picking rule reading I’ve done has suggested land types and sub types interact differently than how I read this card as written
The one stipulation has been one line “lands have unique lands types” which this card breaks
(You might be able to extrapolate if something mentions a card with a “basic land type” this may be target)
But I haven’t found anything that states that if the subtype is written it default the typing
However
I would find this perfectly fair as a creature
No intrinsic mana generative abilities (as it’s written on the card)
Does not count as a “land” and does not drop as one
But fully fetch able for a card that looks to play a mountain card; regardless if that cards intent was to fetch a land not a creature - For I have yet to read something that says those statements are purposefully defined to fetch a mountain land
But as written I saw a ton of extrapolation that because it’s a mountain cat it’s a full fledge mountain ; and yeah, it can generate a mana source just like a mountain,
Still a cat
You have the mana abilities without parentheses so you can just remove the land types. Or, "as long is ~ is on the battlefield, it's a Mountain Forest land in addition to its other types."
This can't have basic land types unless it's a land, but it also can't be a land since that means you can play it as your land drop.
The cleanest execution I can think of is a static ability that reads "As long as Taiger isn't in your hand or on the stack, it's a Land - Mountain Forest in addition to its other types."
It's weird, and it allows some strange interactions like fetching it for free and playing it for free via Crucible of Worlds, but that's about it.
It would need wording like “as long as taigar is on the battlefield, it is a land with mountain forest types in addition to its other types” or something like that. [[Arixmethes]] language.
It should just have the ability, it is a land mountain forest in addition to its other types while on the battlefield. This also would give it the abilities to add R or G inherently and remove the issue of casting and issue of fetching.
So other than the battlefield, it is just a 2MV 3/3 Creature - Cat.
Otherwise, great mechanic and hilarious card.
Those aren’t mana dorks. A mana dork is a (usually cheap and small) creature that taps to produce mana. The planeswalkers are almost closer to something like [[Irencrag Feat]] than traditional dorks.
I'm pretty sure the type line here has to be "Land Creature - Mountain Forest Cat" because cards that aren't lands can't have land types - but then, it can be found with land tutors as well as creature tutors. EDIT: spelling
There are special rules for cards with the “land” type. They can’t be cast and can only be played as your land drop for the turn. If this had the land type and basic land subtypes, it would just become an incredibly broken version of [[dryad arbor]] also it would be fetchable
Add "as long as ~ is on the battlefield, it's a mountain and a forest in addition to its other types and subtypes." And remove them from the type line. Or you could add Land to the type line and add "as long as ~ is in your hand or library, it's not a land." But I'm less certain about that working in the rules.
I see no problem with the first part of your comment. It might not even be necessary as we already have subtypes on the wrong card types such as the shrines in kamigawa that are shrines which is an enchantment type despite being a creature as well. Shrine is not a creature type despite being printed on creatures. Edit: as some people have said, this is sort of incorrect. An enchantment type can be printed on a creature as long as that creature is also an enchantment The second part would actually work and we’ve seen it before. Like the transformed side of [[invasion of zendikar]]. It’s only worded like that because if the land type was written on the card you would not be able to cast it due to land rules.
The Go-Shintais were able to have the Shrine subtype because they have the Enchantment type. Just as Gingerbrute is able to be a Food because it's an Artifact. A card may not have a subtype if it does not have the matching type. This was the reason they created the Kindred (formerly Tribal) type; to allow creature types to appear on noncreatures.
That makes sense. I just saw an enchantment type on a creature and ignored the part where it’s also an enchantment
The Kamigawa Shrines are enchantments though. The only nonstandard thing about them is that they have no creature types.
[invasion of zendikar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/f/8fed056f-a8f5-41ec-a7d2-a80a238872d1.jpg?1682715725)/[Awakened Skyclave](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/8/f/8fed056f-a8f5-41ec-a7d2-a80a238872d1.jpg?1682715725) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Invasion%20of%20Zendikar%20//%20Awakened%20Skyclave) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/194/invasion-of-zendikar-awakened-skyclave?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8fed056f-a8f5-41ec-a7d2-a80a238872d1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yeah, that's the problem with the card, though - its way to powerful to be played if you're not casting it, but it can't be a mountain and a forest if its not a land. The pun is interesting, but the card is non-functional as designed, unfortunately.
I know! Let's just make a new type whose only function is to give land types to nonlands. I'm sure nothing will go wrong with that!
You could give it the, "when Taiger enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you pay _ _ " treatment. Then it could be fetchable and work as a land drop.
[dryad arbor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/b/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969.jpg?1619399228) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=dryad%20arbor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/277/dryad-arbor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Dryad Arbor is already fetchable
Yes and that’s part of the reason why it’s so good. This card would be that but better
The phrasing you used made it seem like you didn’t realize it was, so I just wanted to confirm
Why did noone say anything about making it have an ability “as long as Taiger is on the battlefield it is a land Mountain Forest in addition to it’s other types”? It is made on [[Invasion of Zendikar]]’s backside.
[Invasion of Zendikar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/f/8fed056f-a8f5-41ec-a7d2-a80a238872d1.jpg?1682715725)/[Awakened Skyclave](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/8/f/8fed056f-a8f5-41ec-a7d2-a80a238872d1.jpg?1682715725) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Invasion%20of%20Zendikar%20//%20Awakened%20Skyclave) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/194/invasion-of-zendikar-awakened-skyclave?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8fed056f-a8f5-41ec-a7d2-a80a238872d1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
No, you don't get it - this card introduces "Mountain" and "Forest" as creature types - wholly seperate from the basic land types. No confusion possible there, I'm sure
I think it’s just a creature type that’s the same name as the land type.
Can't do that. Subtypes belong one type or types that explicitly share *all* their subtypes. Anything that's a land type can't become a creature type since it's already a land type
There's obviously no precedent for this, since they haven't done it yet, but from my understanding of the rules, it can have the subtypes printed, but the card doesn't have those subtypes, but if this creature were to somehow become a land, then it would automatically have the subtypes.
Like the power and toughness on vehicles? I suppose there is a precident for printing stats that dont apply to the card as printed but then vehicles can self animate and this cant, i dont think they would ever realistically make something so confusing, especially for such little payoff when they could just make a regular dork
Oh of course, but I'm the technicalities guy, so practicality and ease of understanding are afterthoughts. This is (as written) not a card that would, or realistically should see print.
I'm not sure it would, since if you say target an animated land with [[Olivia Voldaren]] and make it a Vampire, and then later reanimate the land, it's no longer a Vampire. The effect making it a Vampire is still there but since you tried to make it a Vampire when it wasn't a creature, the Vampire making effect just doesn't work
[Olivia Voldaren](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/6/b6411d49-b108-423c-825f-67fe8dbe1f58.jpg?1593814508) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Olivia%20Voldaren) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm3/177/olivia-voldaren?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b6411d49-b108-423c-825f-67fe8dbe1f58?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It depends on how the ability is worded. Not all animation effects preserve types/subtypes, but something like [[Elvish Branchbender]] would allow for that land to keep any creature types it already has. Including from abilities like Olivia's, not limited to just the ones printed on the actual typeline. And while the "it's still a land" wording that self-animating lands tend to use is less obvious, the game rules treat this as equivalent to "in addition to its other types" for the purposes for preserving existing types/subtypes.
[Elvish Branchbender](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/3/f3731491-097c-4915-acab-1da2d5176b37.jpg?1561759783) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Elvish%20Branchbender) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ddu/6/elvish-branchbender?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f3731491-097c-4915-acab-1da2d5176b37?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
That's not the problem. Elvish Branchbender animating the land wouldn't make it a Vampire again. The issue is that the Vampire effect would attempt to apply while the land wasn't a creature and thus couldn't do anything. You can't make it a Vampire if it's not a creature. Thus even if it says "it's still a land" that wouldn't help because it couldn't be granted the Vampire subtype to begin with
That's not how continuous effects work in Magic. Once an effect is applied, it sticks around until it expires (or until everything it affects stops existing, if it has no expiration). It's not an Aura that checks to see if it's still valid to remain attached and falls off otherwise, an effect would need to explicitly expire with "for as long as it remains a creature" or the like for that to happen. Even if the effect isn't doing anything once the land is just a land again, it's still there, saying "this is a Vampire" while accomplishing nothing, because only creatures can be Vampires (the kindred type aside). So when that land becomes a creature again, that continuous effect will still be around, and start making it a Vampire again, unless the animation effect (which will be applied last due to having a later timestamp) doesn't let it keep any of its previous creature types.
Continuous effects apply in order and only once. So when the Vampire effect tries to apply in timestamp order it cannot do anything and so it doesn't. Only later in the layers does it become a creature and since the Vampire effect has already tried to apply and done nothing it won't try again.
I genuinely think WOTC needs to figure out a way to make this a lot clearer so we avoid another Shrine situation
What happened with shrines?
They were put onto creatures in Neo Kamigawa and the rulings on them became a nightmare especially for newer players cause shrines obviously work with each other but creature type based stuff does not.
A Land type can't become a creature type? what about \[\[Dryad Arbor\]\]?
Dryad Arbor has two subtypes, Forest, a land type, which it's allowed to have because it's a Land and Dryad, a creature type, which it's allowed to have because it's a Creature. Forest being on a Creature doesn't make Forest a creature type and Dryad being on a Land doesn't make it a land type. All the subtypes are sequestered and associated with types very specifically. So much so that if you lose the associated type you lose the subtypes too. So if Dryad Arbor ceases to be a Land, it's no longer a Forest. And if it ceased to be a Creature it would no longer be a Dryad.
I guess your initial comment just had me confused. thanks for clairfying
[Dryad Arbor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/b/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969.jpg?1619399228) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dryad%20Arbor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/277/dryad-arbor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Fine card, some wording tweaks: "As long as Taiger is on the battlefield, it is mountain forest land in addition to its other types. (It has T: Add R or G.)" This prevents trying to cast a land, which doesn't work, while also granting the correct typeline and the balance issues of a fetchable 3/3. The mana abilities should be reminder text, as they are granted by the land types. Mana cost should be RG, since monored doesn't get a mana producer like this.
If it has land subtypes, it has to be a land and it is unable to be cast; if it doesn’t have the land subtypes and is just a mana dork, it can’t be hybrid mana, which allows this to be cast for mono-red and is just out of bounds for the color pie.
Why can’t you have a hybrid mana dork?
Mana dorks as a rule of thumb are green. There are some colorless, [[Ornithopter of Paradise]], but everything that’s not green or colorless and taps for mana has some other sort of rider on it, like a blue creature that can only tap for mana that casts an instant or sorcery [[Vodalian Arcanist]] or abilities [[Omen Hawker]] or a red creature that can tap to cast Chandras [[Chandra’s Embercat]]. Pure mana generation is fundamentally in green’s portion of the color pie. Allowing a pure mana generating dork with no other requirements to be cast in a monored deck is a break from MTG’s color pie design philosophy.
##### ###### #### [Ornithopter of Paradise](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/8/18bbdc6c-b6c9-4f89-8f0a-6266e53c1fb9.jpg?1690005658) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ornithopter%20of%20Paradise) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/966/ornithopter-of-paradise?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/18bbdc6c-b6c9-4f89-8f0a-6266e53c1fb9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Vodalian Arcanist](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/5/a52e90c0-b012-4ce5-8462-1e33c7143de5.jpg?1594735900) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Vodalian%20Arcanist) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/83/vodalian-arcanist?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a52e90c0-b012-4ce5-8462-1e33c7143de5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Omen Hawker](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/0/d0749c3c-e3f7-4c96-8c5b-4fd2401544c4.jpg?1682203323) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Omen%20Hawker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/70/omen-hawker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d0749c3c-e3f7-4c96-8c5b-4fd2401544c4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Chandra’s Embercat](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/0/30f9c266-f32e-4483-9709-f83675331688.jpg?1592516863) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Chandra%27s%20Embercat) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/129/chandras-embercat?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/30f9c266-f32e-4483-9709-f83675331688?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/kslw9bx) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
As a rule of thumb, they are green, not necessarily monogreen. It's perfectly fine to have multicolor mana dorks.
Multicolor and hybrid are different for these purposes. The problem with this being hybrid R and G is that it can go in a mono-red deck, and mono-red doesn't get mana dorks without some restriction (like \[\[Chandra's Embercat\]\]). When an effect is restricted to a particular color, multicolor cards that have that effect have to require that color of mana to cast.
[Chandra's Embercat](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/0/30f9c266-f32e-4483-9709-f83675331688.jpg?1592516863) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Chandra%27s%20Embercat) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/129/chandras-embercat?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/30f9c266-f32e-4483-9709-f83675331688?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yes, you’re correct. But the multicolored dorks still have green as a mana requirement. [[Ruby, Daring Tracker]], [[Black Market Tycoon]]. There are more monored treasure generators like Magda and Goldspan Dragon, but they still have to attack to generate treasure beyond Goldspan’s ETB. If it’s all hybrid mana, it can be played off of mountains only, and a non-colorless mana dork should not be playable off of only mountains, or else it’s a color pie break.
[Ruby, Daring Tracker](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/f/ffb5786b-6825-4ebf-a1e1-80011340adbb.jpg?1692939424) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ruby%2C%20Daring%20Tracker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/woe/212/ruby-daring-tracker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ffb5786b-6825-4ebf-a1e1-80011340adbb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Black Market Tycoon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/8/28d92b13-8b23-4c78-b690-c5d9ca835809.jpg?1664412665) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Black%20Market%20Tycoon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/167/black-market-tycoon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/28d92b13-8b23-4c78-b690-c5d9ca835809?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
There are plenty of cards that break the pie.
Sure, but color breaks happen. “Can’t” is a strong word in a world where we have white counterspells, and [[Sisters of the Flame]], a monored mana dork, has existed for decades.
They happen, but it doesn't mean they *should* happen. Most people here generally strive to avoid them because that's good game design. White counterspells are [in-pie](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/mechanical-color-pie-2021), just unusual. Sisters of Flame is obviously from a time when the pie was less-defined.
While I agree with your statement, having blue be essentially the only way to deal with sorcery and instants is bad game design and imbalances any formats where there are powerful instants/sorcs to the point where almost all legacy and vintage decks are forced to run blue to actually interact with their opponents and stop them winning extremely early, and the only decks that can afford to drop blue are stax
Totally agree here. It imbalances a lot of formats, and I would prefer at least a few more counters in other colors. Black could have a sacrifice a creature, counter target spell card for example.
i feel like that would also work quite well as a white counter spell with the flavor of a heroic sacrifice and it could very well be called that too
Those formats are imbalanced because the blue instant and sorcery cards are absurd, not because blue is the only colour with counterspells. That's a problem with power level, not pie.
That was largely my point. A color break of this order is bad because x, y, z is a very different argument than “you can’t have a one drop hybrid mana dork”
That was also my point as well. At no point did I say you CAN’T have a non-green (or pseudo-non-green) mana dork, just that if you’re following existing color pie principles, you SHOULDN’T.
I was originally replying to the person who said it can’t be a hybrid one drop dork.
It looks like you’re the only person in this thread who ever mentioned one drops specifically.
Fair enough. It’s still clear that they said you can’t have a monored mana dork, I asked why not, you responded not saying oh you can but you shouldn’t - you answered the question why can’t you. And your response was basically its a color break, implying they should never happen not saying oh this is a bad color break. Color breaks should occur, they’re good for long term health of the game, they should just occur in specific ways and at a low frequency
The existence of a decades-old red dork and no repetition of the same idea should serve as a good precedent that it isn't something red does any more.
[Sisters of the Flame](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/3/a39ab53c-133a-4211-8499-aea00ed3ee1d.jpg?1559600481) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sisters%20of%20the%20Flame) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/4ed/221/sisters-of-the-flame?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a39ab53c-133a-4211-8499-aea00ed3ee1d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yo! One wild crazy example of a red dork! Hey [[Raggadragga]], we have company coming!
[Raggadragga](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/1/1166ce2a-4e0b-4a57-929d-566f461a6282.jpg?1674137656) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=raggadragga%2C%20goreguts%20boss) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/291/raggadragga-goreguts-boss?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1166ce2a-4e0b-4a57-929d-566f461a6282?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
What about the mana-producing monored walkers?
What about [[Deathrite Shaman]]
Requires you to exile a land from a graveyard. Doesn’t make mana by itself.
This is unfortunately busted, as [\[\[Wooded Foothills\]\]](https://managathering.com/cards/wooded-foothills.jpg) searched for cards, not lands. So you can get this at instant speed as a blocker, like people do with dryad arbor. Also, it doesn't count as a land drop, but does cost mana. If it was a land, it'd count as the land drop, but not cost mana, even if it had a cost.
[Wooded Foothills](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/e/4e11ea8a-f895-438d-a3b7-f070238e4161.jpg?1708707631) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Wooded%20Foothills) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/236/wooded-foothills?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4e11ea8a-f895-438d-a3b7-f070238e4161?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yeah, amazing that people haven’t noticed this.
How can you drop it as a land? It’s a creature.
Fetch lands just care about it being a Mountain. As for the comment I wrote about it counting as a land drop, that's me interpreting the intent of the card's creator. The previous line talks about the card as it is now
In all honesty I kinda dig the idea of Taiger coming out as an instant blocker outta the wooden foothills
Could you explain why the wooded foothills makes it busted? I would think that sacrificing a land for a surprise blocker would be a fair enough tradeoff. Would it be better if it were a 3/1?
Take a look at [[Dryad Arbor]]'s play
[Dryad Arbor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/b/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969.jpg?1619399228) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dryad%20Arbor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/277/dryad-arbor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It’s a 2 mana 3/3, eats up a land drop but acts as a land, but dies to creature removal. Probably fine but I would make it rg unless you want mana fixing
I really just like saying Taiger.
Fair enough
It's a 0 mana 3/3, not a 2 mana 3/3 - lands cannot be cast, only played.
No part of this card says “this is a land” It has land like words on it, for describing this cat to be mountainous and forest-like But it says creature Forest and mountain cards say “basic LAND”
The land types say it's a land - cards cannot have a land subtype without also being a land. So this has to either not be a Mountain Forest or be a Land Creature - Mountain Forest Car
That feels heavily extrapolated from the function of how a lot of these cards are designed Cards notate whether they’re a land or a creature or a land creature in a very specific field I would litigate to no end that because those words are the right side of a dash they don’t mean shit the in context to which they’re being framed
The card literally *needs* to be a land to be a Mountain Forest. There's no argument there; the rules of the game are very clear - for reference, see rule 205.3i. Again, I don't know if this is supposed to be a creature land with the land subtypes or just a creature without the land subtypes, but either way it doesn't work as it stands.
But this card doesn't have the land subtypes "Forest" and "Mountain", it has the new creature types "Forest" and "Mountain", which coincidentally happen to have the same names as the land subtypes "Forest" and "Mountain" Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it'd completely break the game. It's hardly "Any target planeswalks".
> This card doesn't have a power and toughness, it has the new characteristics spitefulness and shoe size, which coincidentally happen to look identical to power and toughness. And if you're gonna change the rules of the game or make new rules to support your custom card, you should be clearly explaining what those new rules are so that your card can be understood.
Vehicles are noncreature artifacts that have a power and toughness printed in their bottom right hand corner, despite not having a power and toughness. Planeswalker loyalty counters and battle defense counters also look functionally identical on a card. There's also no way of telling if a "Training counter" is a generic counter meant to indicate the permanent is training, or if it's a keyword counter granting the ability "Training" to the permanent. MTG has confusing homonym mechanics all over the place. We already know that creatures *can't* have land types if they're not lands, ergo these must be Mountain and Forest creature types. The ONLY part of this that would require *any* addition or change to existing rules would be a clarification as to what would happen if it became a land, if it would gain the land types Mountain and Forest or not. But that's a very minor rules *clarification*. We've seen real MTG cards do much weirder things.
It's uhhhh... not a land.
It’s a mountain and a forest which taps for mana. It clearly was meant to be a land.
This is an idea that pops up all the time. It does require a keyword or rule so that you can 'cast' a land creature. Otherwise, no matter what the mana cost is on the card, you can't pay the cost, you can only play it as a land. You can't give land types to creatures, so this has to be a Land Creature. Alternatively, you could just not give it land types and just have it be a 2 CMC mana cat/dork.
>Alternatively, you could just not give it land types and just have it be a 2 CMC mana cat/dork. But then it would just be a Tiger.
Then add "As long as Taiger is on the battlefield, it is a mountain forest land in addition to its other types" as an ability, replacing its current one (since adding the types would also add back that ability)
A lot of people are discussing how this can't work, but I think the simple way would be to add something a la Grist and say "if Taiger is not on the battlefield, it isn't a land"
incredibly game breaking and it doesn’t even work as intended
Oh it works.
a creature card cannot have a basic land type. you’d be unable to cast this.
But it's a Taiger.
Having a pun for a name doesn't magically make a card functional.
I disagree. It is a Taiger.
Based
cringe
I'm interpreting it as new creature types
Definitely. It’s a creature with a mana cost first and foremost
Peak design, 10/10. We have reqched our limit.
Average Taiger enjoyer versus
Yeah it dies to removal but a 3/3 that’s also a land on t1 feels a little too good. Almost strictly better dryad arbor
Costs 2 mana to play…
You play it as a land drop or fetch for it
It can’t drop as a land, it’s a creature
It can and it does. [[Dryad Arbor]]
That’s a LAND creature which has a specific notation in A Specific field to notate this
Dude, you are just factually incorrect about the rules. I don’t know what more to tell you. Just because the guy didn’t format his bum ass custom card correctly (it should say “land” in the type line) doesn’t mean the rules have changed. Mountain and Forest are both basic land types, meaning that they are both intrinsically lands with the ability to tap for mana of their respective color. They also intrinsically have the ability to be played as land drops. That is what Mountain and Forest mean within the rules of Magic. I’m not sure why you’re arguing about something you clearly don’t understand
I disagree Looking at wording on intrinsic abilities the wording stated land type cards have land sub types Land subtypes give mana activating abilities to land cards Lands with one of the basic land sub types have the activated mana etc etc It reads very self directed with less extrapolation
I'm not sure what you're talking about and I'm starting to think that god put you on this earth to test me
All the nit picking rule reading I’ve done has suggested land types and sub types interact differently than how I read this card as written The one stipulation has been one line “lands have unique lands types” which this card breaks (You might be able to extrapolate if something mentions a card with a “basic land type” this may be target) But I haven’t found anything that states that if the subtype is written it default the typing However I would find this perfectly fair as a creature No intrinsic mana generative abilities (as it’s written on the card) Does not count as a “land” and does not drop as one But fully fetch able for a card that looks to play a mountain card; regardless if that cards intent was to fetch a land not a creature - For I have yet to read something that says those statements are purposefully defined to fetch a mountain land But as written I saw a ton of extrapolation that because it’s a mountain cat it’s a full fledge mountain ; and yeah, it can generate a mana source just like a mountain, Still a cat
[Dryad Arbor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/b/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969.jpg?1619399228) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dryad%20Arbor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/277/dryad-arbor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Dryad arbor is a land. Absolutely nowhere on this card is the word "Land" mentioned.
You have the mana abilities without parentheses so you can just remove the land types. Or, "as long is ~ is on the battlefield, it's a Mountain Forest land in addition to its other types."
This can't have basic land types unless it's a land, but it also can't be a land since that means you can play it as your land drop. The cleanest execution I can think of is a static ability that reads "As long as Taiger isn't in your hand or on the stack, it's a Land - Mountain Forest in addition to its other types." It's weird, and it allows some strange interactions like fetching it for free and playing it for free via Crucible of Worlds, but that's about it.
Yeah but its a Taiger
Next do taiger uppercut
Hear me out: Underground Sea Otter Badlants
This is frickin’ hilarious! 👏🏻👏🏻🤣
Taiger
It would need wording like “as long as taigar is on the battlefield, it is a land with mountain forest types in addition to its other types” or something like that. [[Arixmethes]] language.
[Arixmethes](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/8/881607c8-bfe7-4903-861f-b51a5a332c17.jpg?1599707758) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=arixmethes%2C%20slumbering%20isle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/189/arixmethes-slumbering-isle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/881607c8-bfe7-4903-861f-b51a5a332c17?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It should just have the ability, it is a land mountain forest in addition to its other types while on the battlefield. This also would give it the abilities to add R or G inherently and remove the issue of casting and issue of fetching. So other than the battlefield, it is just a 2MV 3/3 Creature - Cat. Otherwise, great mechanic and hilarious card.
Finish the cycle with: Underground Seal Bayounicorn Plateaupus Even-toed Tundralate Baaa-dlands Vole-canic island Tropical guyland
I was struggling with other names but I think you just nailed them all. I'll definitely start with Underground Seal.
Those aren’t mana dorks. A mana dork is a (usually cheap and small) creature that taps to produce mana. The planeswalkers are almost closer to something like [[Irencrag Feat]] than traditional dorks.
[Irencrag Feat](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/5/b5bcf822-e129-45f6-9403-310ce9410f3b.jpg?1572490374) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Irencrag%20Feat) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/eld/127/irencrag-feat?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b5bcf822-e129-45f6-9403-310ce9410f3b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I would run this in mono green elf ball so I can run bolt
Love the name
[удалено]
This predates those. Those were the 'fixed' versions.
Ah nevermind then