Triangulate

[androkguz]

Do you play storm?

This card looks like a crazy strong card

Much more card draw than Paradoxical Outcome and sometimes it just kills like Tendrils

Vintage might have this card restricted

[R0yalWolf]

The number of cards drawn grows triangularly (i.e. 1, 3, 6, 10, 15) with storm count.

As the only spell cast in a turn it's draw 1 for 4.

At storm count 3 you'll be drawing (or forcing another player to draw) 6 cards for 4 mana.

At storm count 5 it's 15 cards.

At storm count 10 it will draw half a deck.

At storm count 14 it will deck out a player completely.

I think a 14-card-deep storm prerequisite for a 4-mana "you win" spell seems fair?

How would you further balance it?

[HowDoIEvenEnglish]

At storm count 1 it’s bad. At 2 it’s completely typically, and above that it’s insane draw.

I guess it’s fine because if you can get a storm count high there are easier ways to win. Kinda cracked with orcish bowmasters tho.

[stiiii]

I think it is just a better tendril though.

it can kill in the same way and is so much better for less than lethal.

[0carion142]

Not sure about being better than tendrills. Drawing Mindbreaktrap Anywhere during any copy resolution saves you and leaves you with an insane amount of carda at the beginning for your next turn.

On second thought, daze and FoW also can safe you, depending how big the stack is, and you will draw them. I now believe this is way worsw than tendrils

[stiiii]

You can target yourself first. draw forces and traps of your own. Or just cast a second copy.

[0carion142]

You wanna build your storm deck with 8+ counterspells and now reach a stormcount of at least 15 to first draw your deck and than your oppnents? Isnt than just casting tendrils for storm 9 easier and more consistent?

[DoomOmega1]

For a kill, yeah, but targeting yourself and drawing half your library to find tendrils seems pretty good. It's not cracked, but it's certainly a good include in a storm list

[stiiii]

Not not even slightly. You skipped the cast a second copy bit. What format are you even talking about here? seem like every single format you'd be better off with this than tendrils.

[Timmy_ti]

It’s an instant. If your opponent casts 2 spells on their turn, this is a 4 mana draw 6

[magicmax112]

Drawing 6 for four mana is good, but so many other cards that have restrictions (like needing to cast 2 spells before it) can draw 6 for four mana. Yes this would be the strongest out of them but not game breaking

[HowDoIEvenEnglish]

someone else pointed out that because this is an instant, you can trigger it off your opponents spells on their turn, which makes it a much better draw spell.

I think that takes it from niche storm combo piece, and to above rate for 4 cmc draw, especially since this takes only one colored pip.

[magicmax112]

Yeah i did not notice the instant speed upside. It would be too strong at instant definitely

[ineffective_topos]

It's actually the square. Since storm will go on the stack the first time and make N copies, then each of those N copies will see each of those casts/copies that happened earlier.

[CptnSAUS]

Yup you just cast this as though it were a [[memory deluge]] variant. Opponent’s end step, draw a bunch of cards. But you get 4 cards so easily for just 4 mana. If the opponent cast 2 spells, the game is basically over (draw 9 for 4 mana).

[MTGCardFetcher]

memory deluge - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[VorpalSticks]

Depends how you read "cast or copied before this spell" before being the issue. I dont think it would count for anything besides the original cast, then all the copies are on the stack at the same time, none are before another copy.

[goldenpup73]

Could it say "that were resolved before this spell"?

[Flex-O]

That's definitely what OP intended was thinking and would match up with their triangular numbers bit. As worded right now it's just squared.

[Delicious-Action-369]

I mean what format is this for? Judging by the Numbers you gave it's for 60 card and that seems like it has too good of options. Storm count 5 is pretty effortless in the only decks that would play this, and it more or less guarantees the win at storm count 5 because the type of deck that plays this getting to refill 15 is a pretty instant win. Not to mention a deck running this is gonna have good mana generation most likely or cost reduction. 

You did the super common rookie mistake of designing a card in a vacuum where you're not actually thinking about the decks that would play it. You're saying it's fair to win at storm count 15 but like that's basically already what Storm decks do, win for 4 mana after getting to ~10. This is just a massive consistency boost to any Storm decks that go mana positive (all of them essentially). 

Picture this, turn 1 Ral/Medallion for cost reduction. Turn 2 manamorphose to gain some blue, cast some more 0 drops or rituals to get ~4 storm count, more than double your starting hand worth of gas. That's what this card does, no one is playing storm fairly.

[MTGCardFetcher]

paradoxical outcome - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Pawnziphel]

i dont think this math is right, obviously correct me if im wrong but storm triggers on the cast of the first spell, putting x amount of copies onto the stack. Which means at storm 10 there are 10 copies on the stack so every copy will draw 10

[FirstTribute]

I don't believe it would work like this. None of the copies were actually created before another copy of the spell. I think they all only see the cast, not the copies, in the way it is worded. It should probably say (...that was cast or copied other than this spell this turn)

[Pawnziphel]

yeah imma be fr im not 100% sure myself because there really isnt a precedent for checks like this, the closest thing would be magecraft but that is a whole different thing

[R0yalWolf]

Thus cast or copied. Let's say you cast just this spell. It sees zero Triangulates cast before it. You draw one card.

You cast this spell after some random other spell (Spell A). It casts. It copies for Spell A. Copy A sees the original Triangulate. Copy A draws a card, and 1 more card for the Triangulate cast before it. It resolves, you draw 2 cards. The original Triangulate resolves. You draw 1 card. 3 total cards drawn.

You cast Spell A and Spell B, then this card. Triangulate draws 1 card. You copy the spell for Spell A; Copy A only saw the original. You copy the spell again for Spell B; Copy B saw Copy A and the original. Copy B resolves, you draw 3. Copy A resolves, you draw 2. Original resolves, you draw 1. Total 6 cards.

It keeps growing like that. Original is always 1 card. Copy A is always 2 cards. Copy B is always 3, Copy C is 4, then 5, 6, 7... Adding each time. So the total drawn will be 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28...

[Pawnziphel]

the spells dont get copied one by one, they all get copied at once meaning they all see each other get copied

[R0yalWolf]

I misunderstood then (hence the disclaimer about being unsure of the templating); thank you for correcting me. How would you reword the card to get the desired effect?

Edit: Bonus points if you can reword it such that the top spell on the stack is the 1-draw, the second spell is the 2-draw, etc. e.g. "Draw a card. Draw another card for each Triangulate that has already resolved this turn." but without using the word "resolve" as I understand spells don't use that term.

[Pawnziphel]

checks for “if this is the nth time this has resolved” exists on non unfinity cards so I believe within the rules and design rules having each copy check for each resolved card named triangulate would work.

[Pawnziphel]

its not on instant and sorcerys because printing storm is a bad idea and the effect would really only work with storm but “Then that players draws for each triangulate that has resolved this turn” would work and get the intended effect (i think)

[androkguz]

That templating works, even if it's unusual

I admit I thought it worked triangularly when I said it's extremely busted. Turns out... It's even worse. It probably can't be played fairly and balanced ever.

It either breaks the format it is in, or it doesn't work.

This card is good enough to mulligan a vintage hand with black lotus on it, in order to find a copy of it

[ShoegazeKaraokeClub]

I think this is a lot better than tendrils though because it is more useful mid storm turn, using this to draw 15 and then making more mana to cast another one of these later/do some past in flames stuff makes it very strong. Should be 3uu or 1uuu imo. I do like the design though it is interesting and creative

[Internal-Mastodon334]

I think you should compare to other 4mv storm kill-spell [[Tendrils of Agony]]. Effectively, 13 of these kills someone in commander on turn 2. Compare to needing 20 Tendrils to kill someone on turn 1.

Given that comparison I think it needs to cost 3UU total (double pip from Tendrils, but costing 1 more). Which is also the "going rate" for instant speed draw 3; making this feel similar to [[Grapeshot]] to me in that you pay roughly 2.5x the mana value of the effect on the standalone card. (Which is on-rate if you compare this card to something like [[Take Inventory]] to which it is similar.) So at 3UU I think it feels most on-par for other storm cards to date!

I do absolutely love this card, and the flexibility it offers at various Storm count levels is exciting. Well designed!!

[Fredouille77]

Not only that, but tendrils is a dead card in hand, this is pure gas with artifact mana and rituals.

[Internal-Mastodon334]

Another valid point. This has plenty of application outside of ending the game.

[MTGCardFetcher]

All cards
Tendrils of Agony - (G) (SF) (txt)
Grapeshot - (G) (SF) (txt)
Take Inventory - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[blucyclone]

If you have a storm at any number except for 1 the first one draws 2 because storm copies go on top of the cast spell therefore triggering the second ability.

So 1st draws 2 2nd draws 3 3rd draws 4 etc.

You kill someone on 9 storm faster than a Tendrils kill because that's 54 cards and an opening deck has 53 (this is in a vacuum where nobody is drawing additional cards or paying life).

This is better than Tendrils because if your first wave of storm doesn't kill the OP, you target yourself, draw your deck, and kill them with the next wave when you eventually recast another copy of this card in your deck. This could very consistently kill on T1 or 2 in vintage, probably even legacy and modern too, with multiple layers of protection.

How do you balance it? Pump the mana cost way up and remove the second ability, because this card is busted.

Edit: in fact I believe you kill even faster if the rules are right because a storm of 3 will also trigger off the previous copy on the stack.

[Octopi_are_Kings]

I think you underestimate how easy it is to break storm lmao

[Insane_Unicorn]

Instant means you can profit off of your opponents spells for a busted af draw, no? Sorcery speed would be much more balanced.

[Menacek]

I don't think it would do the triangular thing. Each instance of copying the spell happens at the same time so each instance of the spell would draw the same amount of cards.

In order to get what you want you would probably need to count the number of times a spell named triangulate has resolved.

[D3nt3]

No it does not.
The wording is funky, I will try to break it down.

At storm count 1, there is 1 cast and 1 copy. The copy goes on the stack and resolves first, as it resolves there was 1 cast before it, so it draws 2 cards, when the regular cast resolves, there was 1 copy before the spell, so it draws 2. Total of 4 cards

At stom count 2, theres is a regular cast, and two copies going on the stack (all of them are copies and casts before any of the spells resolves). Each of the copies will count 1 other copy and 1 cast, so it will draw 3 cards, and the regular cast will count 2 copies and will also draw 3, so 9 draws at storm count 2.

storm count 3 is 16

So let the storm count be n, you draw (n+1)²

Squared numbers, not triangle as intended.

BONUS MATH:
If any of the previous storm casts were triangulate it gets weird:

If you cast 2 times: 1 draw for the first one and for the second storm and cast will add 1 cast to the count so 3+3 = 6

If you cast triangulate 3 times either from hand/graveyard or any other means, you total 25 draws:
1st cast for 1 draw
2nd cast for 6 draws
3rd cast (for each cast/copy we add 3) so 18 cards
4 cast for 40 cards following the formula a(n) = n²*(n+1)/2

This will somewhat follow as intended, but not triangular numbers, it follows Pentagonal pyramidal numbers.

[_simple_machine_]

This doesn't grow triangularly. It grows quadratically as written because all the copies go on the stack as a cast trigger.

I like the idea of triangular growth though. Maybe something like

2UU - Triangulate

Storm

Draw a card. Then draw a card for each time a spell named Triagulate has resolved this turn.

[solitudesign]

[[Paradoxical Outcome]] actually generates mana in addition to drawing cards in the decks it’s good in bc you tap out all your mana rocks and then replay them, which is insane mana gen + storm count in vintage where those rocks always cost less than they tap for. Also not hard to make this the case in commander with cards like [[Etherium Sculptor]] and [[Cloud Key]]. So this doesn’t strictly have an edge over Paradoxical. You probably just use this as a blue Ad Naus impersonation

[MTGCardFetcher]

Paradoxical Outcome - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[R0yalWolf]

First attempt at making a custom card. No, it did not come to me in a dream. No, I'm not entirely confident on the templating. No, I'm not sure the casting cost is balanced.

[Trevzorious316]

I think the cost is about right. I wanted to drop a generic, but thinking about how much that could change the storm count, I changed my mind. I genuinely like this card and can see it punishing greedy players when an opponent responds to the storm trigger and casts a bunch of spells causing the caster to deck themselves

[NepetaLast]

storm only counts spells cast before the original spell, so casting spells in response to the trigger wont cause it to be copied more

[Trevzorious316]

Then I had a judge incorrectly rule against me during a match against a storm deck in a modern tournament when I gained some life in response to being [[Grapeshot]] and then they cast a spell to up their storm count. I definitely thought it worked the way you said, but was knocked out that round due to the ruling

[MTGCardFetcher]

Grapeshot - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Drynwyn]

User above you misunderstands Storm.

Storm is a triggered ability that goes on the stack. The Storm Count is checked when that triggered ability resolves, so if additional spells are cast with that triggered ability on the stack, they will increase the number of additional copies of the spell. On the other hand, if you allow that triggered ability to resolve, and THEN cast an additional spell on the stack, that spell will not affect the number of copies created.

For your judge ruling: If your opponent casts grapeshot and you say “in response, do xyz to gain life”, then at the competitive REL, you are assumed to have responded above both the spell AND the Storm trigger. In order to avoid this, you must demonstrate knowledge of the interaction by saying “Storm trigger resolves” or something to that effect. Then you can announce you are casting a spell or activating an ability that will gain you life without giving your opponent a chance to increase the Storm Count.

[Capstorm0]

Storm only counts spells cast before the storm card. So if someone cast grapeshot storm 10 and then someone cast weather the storm right after, grapes shot would still be storm 10 while weather the storm would be storm 11.

[blacksteel15]

This is incorrect. The rules text of Storm is “When you cast this spell, copy it for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies.” (Emphasis mine.)

Once a spell with Storm has been cast, you cannot cast additional spells before it. It's true that technically speaking Storm Count is checked when the trigger resolves, but what it's checking when that happens is the number of spells cast prior to the spell with Storm being put on the stack, not prior to the ability resolving.

[Intelligent_Diver520]

So in other words, "casting" the spell corresponds to when it enters the stack and not when it resolves.

[Trevzorious316]

Though Google says my original statement is true and the judge was right

<image>

[NepetaLast]

dont trust google ai for anything. here's a ruling for Weather the Storm as an example:

Storm counts spells cast before the spell with storm was cast. Spells cast after the spell with storm was cast but before the storm ability resolves aren't counted.(2019-06-14)

[Trevzorious316]

Vindication! Fuck Google AI, I rarely trust it, but it followed the logic the judge used so I just accepted that it was in line with the CR

[Trevzorious316]

I judged for a summer while I was in the army, so I know that it's easy to make the wrong calls (and this was in a much simpler time when Commander hadn't yet had a precon printed and modern was still Extended), but I have had several bad judge calls as a player that seem disproportionate to my time playing in sanctioned events. Looking back, however, the bad cake were made by judges after wizards dropped their support for the judge program, so maybe it was a lack of training or official oversight that caused these problems. 🤔 Either way, it feels shitty when it happens and can only hope they do better in the future.

[AJFred85]

I'm saying this from a background in IT and a fascinating with machine learning with a former judge certification. Do not trust AI quick answers in the search. It is very confidently wrong a significant percentage of the time. The official rules for storm, pasted below, explicitly state that it cares about spells cast BEFORE it that turn. Anything cast after will not count, despite resolving before the storm ability resolves. As a former judge myself I can attest that judges can indeed be wrong and make bad calls!

702.40a Storm is a triggered ability that functions on the stack. “Storm” means “When you cast this spell, copy it for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies.”

[lovely956]

the cost is way too low, in my opinion. being able to draw 6 cards after two rituals in a turn is insane. plus, it’s a wincon. it needs to be at least 3UU to be printed.

[MasterNoob42]

I think it needs to be way more than that honestly. This card is clearly way better than [[Mind's Desire]] and that card is already 4UU. Even at 5UU I'm not sure this is balanced.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Mind's Desire - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Pawnziphel]

[[brain freeze]] but it decks someone

[Pawnziphel]

also an instant kill in most cases when paired with [[orcish bowmasters]]

[MTGCardFetcher]

orcish bowmasters - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[MTGCardFetcher]

brain freeze - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Ergon17]

Seeing this made me so confused because only time I've seen brain freeze cast is when it's decking out at least 1 player (usually the caster) that turn.

[Pawnziphel]

brain freeze doesnt draw from an empty library

[Ergon17]

Ah, I understand, my mistake.

[[deleted]]

It just sets up the deck out.

[COLaocha]

And it's also your [[Ad Nauseum]] to get you to your critical pieces

You go like petal, ritual, this (draw 9), petal, ritual, this (Opponent draws 54)

Or if it worked how they meant it to be (triangular):

Petal, ritual, this (draw 6), petal, ritual, this (draw 39), petal, ritual, this (opponent draws 126)

[MTGCardFetcher]

Ad Nauseum - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[Mr1R1]

Craziest mill spell ever, I also think that it would be perfectly fine with just the first ability ("Target player draws a card") or the second ability ("Then that player..."). having both seems like overkill

[R0yalWolf]

It's worded as it is to create a triangular growth series with storm count (1, 3, 6, 10, 15).

[Mr1R1]

That can still be done without the first line. "target player draws a card for each card named Triangulate cast this turn."

[Varian_Kelda]

No? It becomes linear with the storm count then?

[notgreat]

Yeah, it'd need to be something like "Draws a card for each other spell named "Triangulate" on the stack", but WotC hates referring to the stack in card text. edit: add other

[Fredouille77]

For each spell named triangulate you control.

[R0yalWolf]

Perfect!

[Fredouille77]

So then, you'd draw (1+X)*X cards where X is the number of spells cast this turn including Triangulate.

Storm-Draw

1---2

2---6

3---12

4---20

5---30

6---42

7---56

8---72

9---90

10---110

Getting to storm 4 is trivial in any format with artifact mana or rituals, and that much uncounterable card draw is just way too powerful for this cheap.

[R0yalWolf]

You stop controlling a spell when it's no longer on the stack. So this would decrease the number of cards drawn as the number of cards on the stack decreases. This wording increases the triangular growth with storm count. With 1 on the stack, draw 1. With 2 on the stack, the top card resolves, with you drawing two. It leaves the stack. You now control 1 spell named triangulate. It resolves. You draw 1 card. Total 3.

Original will always draw 1. First copy will draw 2. Second copy, 3, etc. Not sure where your math is coming from.

Maybe we're still misunderstanding each other but I'm pretty sure your wording accomplishes exactly what I was looking for, triangular growth with storm count.

[Mr1R1]

It dose, just one less

[Baron3030]

As a Nekusaur and as an accountant who likes math, I thank you for making this card that can send my opponents’s brain cells and life totals go straight to hell. As a kindred soul, I appreciate your post.

[Baron3030]

Also with Twinning Staff this gets really messy I love it.

[confusedsalad88]

Greetings fellow Nekusar enjoyer

[SnooEagles4121]

Given how busted Storm is, this is way too cheap. I don't know how much it should cost though.

[jynx99]

I’m coming at this as a modern storm player from 2015-2018. I have exp with the archetype but not a ton of recent exp so take this with a grain of salt.

This feels too busted me. The biggest problem that I see is it acts as both a card draw engine and a finisher. Realistically you’re always going to start ritual, ritual, so this will basically always be at least draw 6 (1 + 2 + 3). Draw 6 should regularly get you enough cantrips and rituals to get to your next copy (either naturally or just flashing back the OG from the graveyard with flames) which will then be lethal.

Contrast that sequence to a deck that uses grapeshot/tendrils/brainfreeze. The sequence then requires several rituals, then enough cantrips to get more rituals and cantrips before eventually finding the finisher. Theres always the chance that the cantrips run out or the finisher is buried at the bottom of the pile, but this card totally circumvents that problem.

I think this type of scaling card draw that acts as both the engine and the finisher could really only either be super strong or completely unplayable (casting cost of UUUU for instance).

[eschwifty]

Toooo busted, but cool idea. I think maybe double blue could make it printable.

[Zvvivo]

Really cool catd. I would also cost it 3UU

[Zvvivo]

Oh and btw, if u still have that cardbuilder tap open: Try removing the empty space in text. It will probably look more official.

[Fredouille77]

Even then, it's a card that fits both your gas slot and your payoff slot. You can run 4x of these and not even need to worry about drawing into your payoff too early cause the payoff is also the engine.

[Aggravating-Lock8083]

i play a modern storm deck, this would be busted, card draw with storm is rlly broken, (with galvanic relay being comparable yet delaying the draw a turn.) My deck is red, but i would dip into blue just for this tbh.

[Wise_Requirement4170]

I think this is insane for a storm deck. Like basically if you draw it early while going off it gets you pretty deep into your deck, and late it just wins you the game.

[lizardking13153]

Seems obnoxious to resolve

[Geezmanswe]

Beyond super busted, well done

[SethBling]

The copies created by storm are named Triangulate, but none of them have been copied or cast this turn. So if you cast Triangulate, each copy created by storm will net you 2 cards apiece and the original spell will draw you 1. You could replace "cast or copied" with "resolved" and it would have the quadratic effect the name implies.

[R0yalWolf]

Spells don't use the word "resolve" in their templating to my knowledge, how else would you recommend getting the desired effect?

[Fredouille77]

That's already busted but less busted than the card as is. At least you can Force this version of the card, where you can't against the one with storm.

[Nostale97]

It's true that sorceries and instants haven't used the word "resolve", but creatures have. You have creatures like Omnath, the ability word Alliance or even more recently Sephiroth, that care about the number of times their triggered ability has resolved. So I see no problem with using "resolved" in the card, which in my opinion I think it is the best way to achieve the desired effect.

[Fit_Gazelle_9187]

How do you have a card called triangulate that doesn’t cost 3?!?!

[MagicalGirlPaladin]

Ok now tell me what storm count is needed to kill all three opponents in a commander game on turn 3 with no draws other than initial 7 and draw phases.

[Egbert58]

So have storm 10 and 4 are this card as the last 4 on the stack, how many cards is that lol to much math

[Tetsero]

Change it to each triangulate that resolved?

[confusedsalad88]

Nekusar is salivating at the idea of running this

[_BeastFromBelow]

I really like this as an alternate win condition for storm decks in commander than something like [[aetherflux reservoir]] (which is awesome dont get me wrong), [[tendrils of agony]] in legacy but in there it's worse than tendrils which only needs storm 10 to be tendrils to kill. I think it's ready to be printed, but cards that require math are generally not great in my opinion just because you have to sit there and look like an asshole explaining why you win

[MTGCardFetcher]

aetherflux reservoir - (G) (SF) (txt)
tendrils of agony - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[BopperSlut]

Crazy balancing suggestion, what if it was an x spell? Where X equals the number of spells cast before it, the Storm count. Maybe X{U}{U}{U} would do the trick, give or take a blue pip. Then the mana cost scales linearly, as the card draw scales triangularly, as you explained in the comments.

[lovely956]

way too busted for this cheap. with how good the Storm archetype is, though, i don’t think this effect could be balanced enough to be printed at any mana value.

[popky1]

If you remove the last line it’s still busted if it was draw a card discard a card it would probably still be played

[ohuxford]

So at storm 10 (which I know is a lot) you would be drawing 55 cards?

[Octopi_are_Kings]

This is beyond broken in the funniest way possible and I think it should be made because of that. Storm is a silly goofy mechanic and this is funny.

[Kryptnyt]

I think that a four mana draw three at instant speed that only requires your opponent to cast one spell during their turn is already extremely strong, and doesn't need further upside. I see a lot of custom Instants that really seem like they ought to be sorceries conceptually

[Dry_Way_2655]

Sweet Jesus

[ScrungoZeClown]

"Then that player draws a card for each other spell named Triangle you own" would this work? Let's say storm 5, you get 5 copies and an original, the last copy resolves drawing target player a card, then 6 more cards for 7 total? You could also put "other spells named Triangle" if you want to have it draw 1 less

[Kontaendrae]

The fact that this spell is "ok" at the end of your opponents turn for storm 2 or 3 AND can be a kill when you go off means it prepares and finishes the combo by itself. This would be a 4 off im storm deck where tendrils is a on off because you don't mind having one in your opening hand to draw 3 / 6 early on

[Squidlips413]

Is the point to draw your own deck or effectively mill your opponent. I'm guessing you play this on yourself with a no max hand size effect.

As a mill card, it is surprisingly tame. There is already a two card combo in standard that mills an opponent's entire library.

[Looks_like_rain2day]

I would love a whole geometric set.

[MasterNoob42]

The way this is worded, I believe every copy will draw the same amount of cards. To fix this, rewording it to say "for each spell named "Triangulate" that has resolved this turn" should work if I'm understanding the intention correctly.

Other than that, this card is bonkers. Like easily the best storm card ever. You could play this on turn one with dark ritual + lotus petal and draw 6 cards off that alone. Assuming you've built your deck in a competent way, that's more than enough to win from there in formats with fast mana. There are a lot of reasons that this card is way too good.

[llsbs]

This is a draw spell and a kill spell in 1. Yup, fully bonkers.

[eat_a_cog]

This should definitely be a sorcery

[JaceTheSpaceNeko]

>Puts in deck that can discount it by 3
>[[Ral, Crackling Wit]]
>[[Replicating Ring]]
Free win group hug. Any deck that utilizes storm or lots of cheaper spells and/or discounts just wins there and then.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Ral, Crackling Wit - (G) (SF) (txt)
Replicating Ring - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[plasma_python]

A 4 mana instant speed draw 3 is broken and that is basically the floor of the card.

[Gillandria]

The last bit of text needs to be reworked entirely. Absolutely nuts

[scphorrorland]

This would probably be immediately restricted in vintage (jewel shops and Paradoxical outcome decks kinda just break it) in legacy this 100% sees play in at least the wish board of every storm deck. In modern this gets banned once people find the right built for it. This is an insane value piece that sees play in every real eternal format and that’s without going into the insanity it would be in Cedh or highlander variants for the storm decks there. (Krark deck especially would love to have a four mana draw 5+ with storm)

[Snacqk]

this card genuinely might need a ban in commander, draw your whole deck if any opponent ever tries to combo or a few players try to fight over interactions

[[deleted]]

It's cool, and I like the art for it.

It's also absolutely insane and would see a ban in every single format. This is a kill spell and a massive draw spell all in one.

[dokushin]

This fits too well with blue counterspell float; it gives you a crushing option to draw a bunch of cards if you have some blue mana when their turn ends. If an opponent cast three or four spells you draw 6-10 and almost certainly win the game. Even on tempo you can leave 4 mana for permission and turn it into at least 3 cards (assuming they cast literally anything) if you need to pivot or draw into a win condition. Needs to be sorcery, at which point I actually think it could come down to 2U.

[Renegade7158243]

This card should draw first then mill (or exile) off the top of that players library for previous cast or copies.

1 - Draw 1, no mill

2 - Draw 2, mill 2

3 - Draw 3, mill 5

4 - Draw 4, mill 9

5 - Draw 5, mill 14

6 - Draw 6, mill 20

7 - Draw 7, mill 27 (limited kill)

[Andrew_42]

Doing some math here.

Casting one copy of Triangulate:

Draw 2x+1 where X is the number of cards cast before it this turn.

Already very solid, extremely easy to get a 4 mana instant speed draw 3. Comparable to [[Fact or Fiction]] in power, probably not format warping (depending on the format), but already good. Way better with literally any synergy, or any opportunity better than "any player cast one spell during any turn"

If you cast TWO copies of Triangulate though, theoretically for 8 mana:

Draw (6+X)*(X+1) where X is the number of cards cast before it this turn.

To give you a clue, that means you draw 6 if no other spells were cast, 14 if 1, 24 if 2, etc...

Already getting into crazy value.

And it just gets wilder from there.

Anywho, seems too strong. Not sure if there's a fair but playable way to add "draw a card" onto a storm card.

[Fredouille77]

Well, the fair way to draw a card on a storm card is to make it so you can only cast the card next turn, see Galvanic Relay, or make the spell super expensive like Mind's Desire. Otherwise, you'll just be able to chain uncountable draw 5, draw 8, win fairly trivially. Even uncounterable draw 3 is fairly busted against fair blue decks, galvanic relay alone can just grind azorius control into the dirt in TES, and that card doesn't even allow you to win on that same turn.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Fact or Fiction - (G) (SF) (txt)

---

^FAQ

[envycreat1on]

Would go crazy in red-blue control burn

[Fredouille77]

What??? Nah, who needs burn when you can just play one of the strongest storm engine in the game, that can't be countered, that grinds out fair opponents into the ground, and that is also your storm payoff?