I know people try making dual lands a lot, and its unlikely that they get made.. but.. I had thought up the Scars of Mirrodin lands such as Darkslick Shores and that turned out. Maybe people will copy my idea again...
Forest of Darkness
Land - Forest
If this land is untapped, you may pay 1 life to transform. You may only use this ability once per turn.
T: Add G to your mana pool.
Plains of Light
Land - Plains
If this land is untapped, You may pay 1 life to transform. You may only use this ability once per turn.
T: Add W to your mana pool.
It's like a fetch land, that doesnt trigger land fall, nor shuffle your deck, nor can tutor out ABUR duals and thin your deck.
You play it as either land type, and then have the option to pay 1 life to flip it over for the other colour and tap it for mana in the same turn, but you can only do it once a turn, and it doesnt tap for colourless
It allows you to get either of colour of your choice, never pay any life, but you only choose between the two colours once, because there is only 1 colour one side, and 1 colour on the other side
but if you wanted to switch it to the other side, you can pay 1 life to flip it
Another thing that might be more flavourful is a stronger contrast as an enemy colour cycle, instead of an allied cycle
Maybe just a land with a front and a back , uncommon cycle, with no basic land types, when it enters the battlefield pay 1 life, tap for one colour of mana
and since it is double sided could decide which side you want to play it as.
instead of paying 1 life each time you want to flip it over .
I hyperlinked above a thread on Reddit where someone had this idea,
but I didn't like the bottom half ability of the card, liked that it could come in as either or
but felt that there should be some payment of life, at least 1 life
Forest of Darkness
Land - Forest
If this land is untapped, you may pay 1 life to transform. You may only use this ability once per turn.
T: Add G to your mana pool.
Plains of Light
Land - Plains
If this land is untapped, You may pay 1 life to transform. You may only use this ability once per turn.
T: Add W to your mana pool.
hmmmm... not sure if we are really allowed transform cards with each side playable, but they're probably no more burdensome to the rules than fuse cards. It is strictly better than forest, so maybe they should enter the battlefield tapped. I'm unconvinced they'd see more play than fetchlands or shocklands but a cycle could be interesting of transform cards returns, assuming their printed at uncommon.
I do prefer this card to logging zone though. Seriously that land looks really bad, lands should never require long term planning and a strong memory to use.
oh i didn't even notice these were strictly better than basics at first. OP these lands have way too many problems to be printed anywhere near what they look like right now.
I liked the Logging Zone card's first ability, a lot of people on reddit basically said this, but if it was two-sided would be easier to track what it was, and if it was common or uncommon people would be able to easily own them in multiple, since it is two-sided people can own two copies of each land. so it has to be a mostly-weak, but versatile land. and it has to be clearly discernable as to what card it is, unlike the kamigawa flip cards, and not have squeezed artwork . the transform cards are functional magic cards and work well, basically the idea would be a card like Delver, but as a land.
// Two-Sided -- Shadowed, Light
+ No life payment, at all, can't be stifled or pithing needle'd, since it has no abilities that are not mana abilities.
- Not fetchable, no shuffle effect, no card advantage, graveyard synergy, or deck thinning, doesn't replace itself etc
- Not tap-able as either colour
- Once played, thats it, you'd have to bounce, sac, somehow recast it to have it come into play another side.
really strong. even in Legacy.
Tezzerator control plays 3 of them, which won the last SCG Open first place
because it plays Sol Lands, utility lands, with few fetchable land targets
but as soon as you want to make your 4th land drop, they dont come into play untapped anymore
These would be able to come into play untapped, and if you had played other lands first, at least by that point you dont need as many different colours, and could deal with it being 1 colour or the other
also,
could be played with those lands, and be competitive enough I think against decks with ABUR duals
or shocks
being only 1 land colour is a huge drawback, because you can't cast 1 colour of card 1 turn, and then cast the other colour next turn
the flip is an activated ability, you just didn't template it right
you're writing a lot of words exploring this idea but you don't seem to realize how many unfixable problems the land already has.
Well the original premise was simply a land that came into play as either a Forest or a Plains. Not both. And I think its a cool land like this. Not as powerful as the Scars lands, but still taps for the colour you need it as when you play it untapped. not being able to tap for the other colour ever is a fair trade off for coming into play as either colour.
my first thought was just.. the first basic premise of coming into play 1 way or another way is fine, if it was two sided like Delver of Secrets wouldn't be confusing. but to be played multiple copies so that people could easily just bring in another copy of it flipped over it had to be lower rarity
I made the land more complicated than it needed to be by necessarily needing to transform it back and forth. because I liked the original idea. but in that case its not much different than a pain land.
but the original idea is compelling i think, without the land actually being a true dual
I like that template. I would make one change to help keep track of which state the land is in:
Logging Zone
Land
You may have ~ enter the battlefield with a storage counter on it.
~ is a forest as long as it has a storage counter on it, otherwise it's a plains.
Whenever you tap ~ for mana, put a storage counter on it if there are no storage counters on it, otherwise remove all storage counters from it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Forest of Darkness
Land t, pay 1 life: Transform ~, then untap it. t: Add G to your mana pool.
// Plains of Light
Land t, pay 1 life: Transform ~, the untap it. t: Add W to your mana pool.
Forest of Darkness
Land t, pay 1 life: Transform ~, then untap it. t: Add G to your mana pool.
// Plains of Light
Land t, pay 1 life: Transform ~, the untap it. t: Add W to your mana pool.
The strictly better part.
Which they're not.
It taps for green, has an additional ability, and has no drawback. It hits all the checks for "strictly better" than a forest.
I think to check for something when it enters the battlefield is much cleaner than having counters or activated abilities. If, for every time you tap the land for mana, you have to forsee something, it creates a puzzle for yourself. Either ETB or conditionals such as Nimbus Maze.
Forest of Darkness
Land t, pay 1 life: Transform ~, then untap it. t: Add G to your mana pool.
// Plains of Light
Land t, pay 1 life: Transform ~, the untap it. t: Add W to your mana pool.
The strictly better part.
Which they're not.
It taps for green, has an additional ability, and has no drawback. It hits all the checks for "strictly better" than a forest.
Except it's not a forest, which counts as a drawback.
There is no innate functional difference between a forest and a land that taps for G. Only fetches and other land types matter cards make a distinction, and those are outside influences and thus irrelevant to the strictly better categorization. If outside influences did matter, cards like Boggart Loggers and Corrupted Roots would serve as just as much of an argument against forests being strictly better. It's like arguing that Cathodion isn't strictly better than Gray Ogre because Smelt exists.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
"Strictly Better™" is an R&D term that does not mean always better. One big difference is that subtypes and supertypes are not considered for whether or not a card is strictly better.
The part about not considering subtypes and supertypes in general is from another article that I can't find right now more generally about the term "strictly better" referring to different creature types and being legendary. But as that applies to lands is the very first thing MaRo talks about in the linked article:
Rule #1 – No Land Can Be “Strictly Better” Than a Basic Land
I guess I should start by explaining what I mean by “strictly better.” This is a phrase R&D tosses around a lot. “Strictly better” means that one card is in all occurrences (within reason) better than another. An example of a “strictly better” would be Lightning Bolt versus Shock. Barring a really convoluted set-up (you know your opponent has Eye for an Eye and you're at 3 life while he's at 2), you would always want Lightning Bolt over Shock. For an identical cost, it just does exactly the same thing, but better.
The ramification of the “strictly better” rule is that we cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. The nonbasic land status, incidentally, is not considered by R&D to be enough of a drawback. While there are spells that hose nonbasic lands (like Price of Progress), there are also spells that hose specific basic lands (like Boil) that do not affect nonbasic lands (other than the original Tundra). As such, we consider the ability to be a slight negative but not enough to avoid the “strictly better” problem.
Yup, which doesn't say not having a basic land type isn't a sufficient drawback. It only says the basic supertype isn't a sufficient drawback.
You notice how it that paragraph its assumed that all nonbasic don't have basic land types, which is why he calls out the original duels. So its obvious that not having a basic land type isn't a downside, but expected, meaning not being a forest is expected and being a forest is extra power.
Yup, which doesn't say not having a basic land type isn't a sufficient drawback. It only says the basic supertype isn't a sufficient drawback.
You notice how it that paragraph its assumed that all nonbasic don't have basic land types, which is why he calls out the original duels. So its obvious that not having a basic land type isn't a downside, but expected, meaning not being a forest is expected and being a forest is extra power.
You know what the difference between our cases are?
Yours relies upon what he doesn't say and extrapolates from there.
Mine relies upon what he actually says and requires no extrapolation.
No, yours specifically relies on him not saying something, its even bolded on your quote. I rely on reading what is being said and drawing a reasonable conclusion. Your is literally going "HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THIS SO OBVIOUSLY IT DOESN'T COUNT."
The fact is, functionally there is no difference between a Forest and a land that taps for G. The only time the subtype matters is when another card makes it matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Yup, which doesn't say not having a basic land type isn't a sufficient drawback. It only says the basic supertype isn't a sufficient drawback.
The ramification of the “strictly better” rule is that we cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. The nonbasic land status, incidentally, is not considered by R&D to be enough of a drawback.
That is literally the opposite of what the quote says. Being nonbasic is not a sufficient drawback, and thus the proposed land would require some sort of drawback, like ETB tapped, to offset the additional flexibility of being able to produce another type of mana.
happyjosiah asked: Part of land design is not "outclassing" basic lands. But there are strictly better lands like Flagstones of Trokair where the justification is that they are Legendary (only one can be in play.) Don't the deckbuilding restrictions on non-basics essentially say "only four can be in play"? So what's the problem?
Legendary lands that are “strictly better” than a basic land are something we do sparingly. Dessert is sweet. That doesn’t the rest of dinner should be sweet.
loldwarf-blog-blog asked: What are some types of land cards Wizards would never do? (In case lands win the YMTC vote, it'd be good to know if land tokens, etc. are fair game for submissions!) What about for the other types---are there things fans shouldn't submit because of the game's rules?
All lands must produce mana (or have the ability to get access to mana/lands. Lands cannot be strictly better than basic lands which means if it produces colored mana (including producing more than one color of mana), it will have to have some kind of drawback.
I also doubt the public is going to have the ability to make legendary land as we do them very infrequently and only for very specific story purposes. I also believe land tokens are not going to be on the table for the same reason we haven’t done them yet - they’re very confusing and hard to track whether or not they’re tapped.
Why are basic lands the one thing that is never allowed to have a strictly better version of? Grizzly Bears (or equivalent, and often in green *and* white) get printed in every core set, yet ever expansion has strictly better 2/2s for 1G (or 1W), same with many other spells.
There have been some better than basic land lands printed in the past, but a lot of them were mistakes/overpowered.
Why was the choice made to never print a land that is "strictly better" than the basics?
Because we want basic land to matter. Also, a power level concern.
avatarofbro asked: Why don't we see lands that are "strictly better" than the basics more often? I.e. lands that don't enter tapped, have tap: add {one mana of a color} to your mana pool and then another ability. Almost every land that has a basic land ability in addition to something else is either legendary or enters tapped. I understand you don't want to undermine the concept of the basic land, but I can't see the occasional "strictly better" land having much of an impact, especially as you could only run four.
You seem to be answering your own question. Yes, we consciously try to avoid making “strictly better than basic land” lands. Why? Because we actually want people to play with basic lands (along with a handful of nonbasic lands).
Yes, they have done nonbasics that are strictly better than basics in the past. No, they do not like doing them and would basically never, ever do them today.
As for the actual card: Cool design, but as the above demonstrates, needs to be powered down a lot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
I have two ideas for cycles which use the concept of nimbus maze rather than transforming the land back and forth:
Concept 1
Land - Plains
~ enters the battlefield tapped unless you don't control a forest. T: Add G to your mana pool.
It's the reverse of nimbus maze. However, this cycle is assymetric, it'd require twenty lands. I don't think wizards wants to do a cycle that requires 20 card slots.
Concept 2
Land - Plains
When ~ enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life. T: Add G to your mana pool.
However, it's again assymetric, requiring a cycle of twenty lands.
Hmmm... After reading through both ideas I came with a third. The check lands from M11 can't have basic types because they would end up begin better than basic by checking for themselves. How about reversing the check conditional and have it check for the land types you don't have?
Concept 3
Land - Plains Forest
~ enters the battlefield tapped unless you control either a mountain, swamp or an island.
The downside is that it forces you to play at least three colored decks. If the check conditional would be reduced to just one land type, it'd require a cycle of 30 lands to have a complete cycle.
I have two ideas for cycles which use the concept of nimbus maze rather than transforming the land back and forth:
Concept 1
Land - Plains
~ enters the battlefield tapped unless you don't control a forest. T: Add G to your mana pool.
It's the reverse of nimbus maze. However, this cycle is assymetric, it'd require twenty lands. I don't think wizards wants to do a cycle that requires 20 card slots.
Concept 2
Land - Plains
When ~ enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life. T: Add G to your mana pool.
However, it's again assymetric, requiring a cycle of twenty lands.
Hmmm... After reading through both ideas I came with a third. The check lands from M11 can't have basic types because they would end up begin better than basic by checking for themselves. How about reversing the check conditional and have it check for the land types you don't have?
Concept 3
Land - Plains Forest
~ enters the battlefield tapped unless you control either a mountain, swamp or island.
The downside is that it forces you to play at least three colored decks. If the check conditional would be reduced to just one land type, it'd require a cycle of 30 lands to have a complete cycle.
Scrap the double negation in the first one: ~enters the battlefield tapped if you control a forest is a lot cleaner and less confusing.
Concept 2 is insanely good, it's a dual land whose only drawback is making it slightly harder to fetch and costing a life. That is a very small price to pay for a dual land that etb untapped.
Concept 3 is also broken beyond belief (well, very VERY good). It makes it easier to play 3+ colours than 2 colours and this coupled with fetches is copiously good, I'd wager it would outrank shocklands in a LOT of decks.
Turn one you can fetch a shock, fetch a basic or play one of these things tapped. Turn two you can fetch any colour. Say you play a UW land turn one, turn two the only one of these lands that would enter tapped would be another UW land, any of the others would be akin to fetching a dual. And if you already have a UW land odds are you don't want another.
Even if you play an island turn one you can fetch any other colourpair you want entering untapped for no life. The only drawback would be in a deck with lots of UU costs.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Concept 1: changed to "enters the battlefield tapped unless you control at least one basic land".
Concept 3: checking for a certain number of lands has already being done by Prairie Stream and Seachrome Coast. So I think that the option left is to make it a bounce land. "Enters the battlefield tapped unless you return a plains or a forest to its owner's hand".
sort of my idea
Forest of Darkness // Plains of Light
Forest of Darkness
Land - Forest
If this land is untapped, you may pay 1 life to transform. You may only use this ability once per turn.
T: Add G to your mana pool.
Plains of Light
Land - Plains
If this land is untapped, You may pay 1 life to transform. You may only use this ability once per turn.
T: Add W to your mana pool.
It's like a fetch land, that doesnt trigger land fall, nor shuffle your deck, nor can tutor out ABUR duals and thin your deck.
You play it as either land type, and then have the option to pay 1 life to flip it over for the other colour and tap it for mana in the same turn, but you can only do it once a turn, and it doesnt tap for colourless
It allows you to get either of colour of your choice, never pay any life, but you only choose between the two colours once, because there is only 1 colour one side, and 1 colour on the other side
but if you wanted to switch it to the other side, you can pay 1 life to flip it
Another thing that might be more flavourful is a stronger contrast as an enemy colour cycle, instead of an allied cycle
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
also, the massive pain of manually flipping lands. not nearly as fun as flipping werewolves, esp since they can all happen at different times.
The way I had it in my OP,
you would be able to Pithing Needle or Stifle the land's ability
but you can't stifle or Pithing Needle a pain land
Maybe just a land with a front and a back , uncommon cycle, with no basic land types, when it enters the battlefield pay 1 life, tap for one colour of mana
and since it is double sided could decide which side you want to play it as.
instead of paying 1 life each time you want to flip it over .
I hyperlinked above a thread on Reddit where someone had this idea,
but I didn't like the bottom half ability of the card, liked that it could come in as either or
but felt that there should be some payment of life, at least 1 life
hmmmm... not sure if we are really allowed transform cards with each side playable, but they're probably no more burdensome to the rules than fuse cards. It is strictly better than forest, so maybe they should enter the battlefield tapped. I'm unconvinced they'd see more play than fetchlands or shocklands but a cycle could be interesting of transform cards returns, assuming their printed at uncommon.
I liked the Logging Zone card's first ability, a lot of people on reddit basically said this, but if it was two-sided would be easier to track what it was, and if it was common or uncommon people would be able to easily own them in multiple, since it is two-sided people can own two copies of each land. so it has to be a mostly-weak, but versatile land. and it has to be clearly discernable as to what card it is, unlike the kamigawa flip cards, and not have squeezed artwork . the transform cards are functional magic cards and work well, basically the idea would be a card like Delver, but as a land.
// Two-Sided -- Shadowed, Light
+ No life payment, at all, can't be stifled or pithing needle'd, since it has no abilities that are not mana abilities.
- Not fetchable, no shuffle effect, no card advantage, graveyard synergy, or deck thinning, doesn't replace itself etc
- Not tap-able as either colour
- Once played, thats it, you'd have to bounce, sac, somehow recast it to have it come into play another side.
- Non-basic
- Not basic land types, can't be fetched.
The scars of Mirrodin lands,
Darkslick Shores
really strong. even in Legacy.
Tezzerator control plays 3 of them, which won the last SCG Open first place
because it plays Sol Lands, utility lands, with few fetchable land targets
but as soon as you want to make your 4th land drop, they dont come into play untapped anymore
These would be able to come into play untapped, and if you had played other lands first, at least by that point you dont need as many different colours, and could deal with it being 1 colour or the other
also,
could be played with those lands, and be competitive enough I think against decks with ABUR duals
or shocks
being only 1 land colour is a huge drawback, because you can't cast 1 colour of card 1 turn, and then cast the other colour next turn
the flip is an activated ability, you just didn't template it right
you're writing a lot of words exploring this idea but you don't seem to realize how many unfixable problems the land already has.
Well the original premise was simply a land that came into play as either a Forest or a Plains. Not both. And I think its a cool land like this. Not as powerful as the Scars lands, but still taps for the colour you need it as when you play it untapped. not being able to tap for the other colour ever is a fair trade off for coming into play as either colour.
my first thought was just.. the first basic premise of coming into play 1 way or another way is fine, if it was two sided like Delver of Secrets wouldn't be confusing. but to be played multiple copies so that people could easily just bring in another copy of it flipped over it had to be lower rarity
I made the land more complicated than it needed to be by necessarily needing to transform it back and forth. because I liked the original idea. but in that case its not much different than a pain land.
but the original idea is compelling i think, without the land actually being a true dual
I like that template. I would make one change to help keep track of which state the land is in:
Logging Zone
Land
You may have ~ enter the battlefield with a storage counter on it.
~ is a forest as long as it has a storage counter on it, otherwise it's a plains.
Whenever you tap ~ for mana, put a storage counter on it if there are no storage counters on it, otherwise remove all storage counters from it.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
There is no innate functional difference between a forest and a land that taps for G. Only fetches and other land types matter cards make a distinction, and those are outside influences and thus irrelevant to the strictly better categorization. If outside influences did matter, cards like Boggart Loggers and Corrupted Roots would serve as just as much of an argument against forests being strictly better. It's like arguing that Cathodion isn't strictly better than Gray Ogre because Smelt exists.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
This Land is My Land
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
That is literally the opposite of what the quote says. Being nonbasic is not a sufficient drawback, and thus the proposed land would require some sort of drawback, like ETB tapped, to offset the additional flexibility of being able to produce another type of mana.
Yes, they have done nonbasics that are strictly better than basics in the past. No, they do not like doing them and would basically never, ever do them today.
As for the actual card: Cool design, but as the above demonstrates, needs to be powered down a lot.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Concept 1
Land - Plains
~ enters the battlefield tapped unless you don't control a forest.
T: Add G to your mana pool.
It's the reverse of nimbus maze. However, this cycle is assymetric, it'd require twenty lands. I don't think wizards wants to do a cycle that requires 20 card slots.
Concept 2
Land - Plains
When ~ enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add G to your mana pool.
However, it's again assymetric, requiring a cycle of twenty lands.
Hmmm... After reading through both ideas I came with a third. The check lands from M11 can't have basic types because they would end up begin better than basic by checking for themselves. How about reversing the check conditional and have it check for the land types you don't have?
Concept 3
Land - Plains Forest
~ enters the battlefield tapped unless you control either a mountain, swamp or an island.
The downside is that it forces you to play at least three colored decks. If the check conditional would be reduced to just one land type, it'd require a cycle of 30 lands to have a complete cycle.
Scrap the double negation in the first one: ~enters the battlefield tapped if you control a forest is a lot cleaner and less confusing.
Concept 2 is insanely good, it's a dual land whose only drawback is making it slightly harder to fetch and costing a life. That is a very small price to pay for a dual land that etb untapped.
Concept 3 is also broken beyond belief (well, very VERY good). It makes it easier to play 3+ colours than 2 colours and this coupled with fetches is copiously good, I'd wager it would outrank shocklands in a LOT of decks.
Turn one you can fetch a shock, fetch a basic or play one of these things tapped. Turn two you can fetch any colour. Say you play a UW land turn one, turn two the only one of these lands that would enter tapped would be another UW land, any of the others would be akin to fetching a dual. And if you already have a UW land odds are you don't want another.
Even if you play an island turn one you can fetch any other colourpair you want entering untapped for no life. The only drawback would be in a deck with lots of UU costs.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Concept 3: checking for a certain number of lands has already being done by Prairie Stream and Seachrome Coast. So I think that the option left is to make it a bounce land. "Enters the battlefield tapped unless you return a plains or a forest to its owner's hand".