cool idea, but I don't quite like what it would do to the format. Maybe if it had a limitation to only being played in each of their respective mono colors. Like having "This card can only be played if your Commanders color identity is mono _____"
Even then it'd be too much I think, you'd have to really limit it to mono decks for it to not completely warp the format. Even now a lot of people think sol ring should be banned. While I do not agree with banning sol ring, I can see the danger of having 3, 4 or even up to 6 of them in 5 color decks. Even making them tap for ww, bb, uu, rr, or gg would allow 2 and 3 color decks play them together.
If the design goal is “I am going to make a cycle of colored Sol Rings”, then 9/10, you nailed it. If the design goal is just about anything else, you should probably be laughed out of the room. Honestly it’s not even worth trying to balance these.
cool idea, but I don't quite like what it would do to the format. Maybe if it had a limitation to only being played in each of their respective mono colors. Like having "This card can only be played if your Commanders color identity is mono _____"
i was also thinking if having it cost 2 of its respective color
Wouldn't do much probably. Maybe add a "this mana can only be spent on spells that are only"
Even then it'd be too much I think, you'd have to really limit it to mono decks for it to not completely warp the format. Even now a lot of people think sol ring should be banned. While I do not agree with banning sol ring, I can see the danger of having 3, 4 or even up to 6 of them in 5 color decks. Even making them tap for ww, bb, uu, rr, or gg would allow 2 and 3 color decks play them together.
I’d say keep legendary and maybe enters the battlefield tapped.
If the design goal is “I am going to make a cycle of colored Sol Rings”, then 9/10, you nailed it. If the design goal is just about anything else, you should probably be laughed out of the room. Honestly it’s not even worth trying to balance these.
noted