1
Legendary Land T: Add W to your mana pool. 3W, T: Put a 1/1 white Human Ally creature token onto the battlefield. 5WW, T: Put three 1/1 white Human Ally creature tokens onto the battlefield.
2
Legendary Land T: Add U to your mana pool 2U, T: Return target creature you control to its owner’s hand. 5UU, T: Return target creature to its owner’s hand.
3
Legendary Land T: Add B to your mana pool. 3B, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand. 5BB, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
4
Legendary Land T: Add R to your mana pool. 2R, T: Each player sacrifices a land. 5RR, T: Target player sacrifices a land.
5
Legendary Land T: Add G to your mana pool. 2G, T: Search your library for a land card, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library. 5GG, T: Search your library for a creature card, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
The only Legendary Lands WotC has printed since Kamigawa (2005) that produce colored mana AND have another ability are Flagstones of Trokair and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, so I'm guessing they think it's too powerful. Based on that, I'd suggest making all of these lands produce C instead of their color when tapped for mana.
1
Legendary Land T: Add W to your mana pool. 3W, T: Put a 1/1 white Human Ally creature token onto the battlefield. 5WW, T: Put three 1/1 white Human Ally creature tokens onto the battlefield.
Seems fun but a little unexciting, since the two abilities are so similar. Maybe have only one of them make tokens?
3
Legendary Land T: Add B to your mana pool. 3B, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand. 5BB, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
I like it. Very fun for a game in Limited that goes long.
5
Legendary Land T: Add G to your mana pool. 2G, T: Search your library for a land card, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library. 5GG, T: Search your library for a creature card, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Same critique here - how does a land search for other lands? Flavor-wise, I can imagine creatures emerging from the jungles that grow on this land, but I don't know how a land finds other lands, unless it's some sort of cartographer's headquarters.
Lands don't enter untapped and tap for colored mana without a drawback and these each have two additional abilities. They need to enter tapped, not produce colored mana or have a significant downside but your pressed for text space as is.
I like the scaling of the effects. The Red and Green ones feel wrong. Repeatable land destruction is not done nearly this efficiently, even if it is symmetrical. Green is both too strong and too weak on both of its effects, partially because how the first effect guarantees the second. It would be best if Red dealt damage and green pumped creatures. There are other possible effects but keeping with the simplicity of your other effects these would fit best.
A green Spreading Seas isn't exactly out of pie but it isn't an effect that green does. Terra-morphing is done almost exclusively in blue. If there was a good reason for it I could see green stretching to encompass this power.
I believe Legendary on a land is a significant drawback when the goal of the land is to have 8 lands in play. WotC has admitted that they would have reworked the original Zendikar lands to be Legendary if they could, so it's not a question of power. What matters is when the land becomes strictly better than a basic, which I don't believe any of these are. Oboro, Palace in the Sky, Pendlehaven and Flagstones of Trokair are perfect examples of this. These are effects that some decks want but they wont replace a land in every deck running that color. The combination of being nonbasic, Legendary and not having a basic land type creates a very relevant set of downsides. A Legendary land is also a very different beast than a Planeswalker or a creature. Most of the time those things get destroyed and another copy is important. Drawing a second copy of a Legendary land is almost always a dead draw.
Trust me when I say I understand that there is a line where Legendary is no longer a downside.
1
Legendary Land - Swamp 1B, T: Target player loses 1 life.
That card is too good. Being nonbasic and Legendary is not enough of a drawback. This card would replace a basic swamp in most decks that run them.
Anyways, rant over. I would like to change the red land but damage is so boring. Any ideas?
Overgrow was based on Song of the Dryads, which was printed just last year. I don't know how taboo a scaled down version of that effect is, honestly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
I believe Legendary on a land is a significant drawback when the goal of the land is to have 8 lands in play. WotC has admitted that they would have reworked the original Zendikar lands to be Legendary if they could, so it's not a question of power.
Which lands are you referring to? There are 36 different lands in the original Zendikar block.
I would like to change the red land but damage is so boring. Any ideas?
You could do power-pumping for creatures (+1/+0, +2/+0) and/or granting abilities (first strike, haste, menace). Or the land could exile cards from the top of your library and let you play them for a turn. Or maybe the second ability could copy spells?
I believe Legendary on a land is a significant drawback when the goal of the land is to have 8 lands in play. WotC has admitted that they would have reworked the original Zendikar lands to be Legendary if they could, so it's not a question of power. What matters is when the land becomes strictly better than a basic, which I don't believe any of these are. Oboro, Palace in the Sky, Pendlehaven and Flagstones of Trokair are perfect examples of this. These are effects that some decks want but they wont replace a land in every deck running that color. The combination of being nonbasic, Legendary and not having a basic land type creates a very relevant set of downsides. A Legendary land is also a very different beast than a Planeswalker or a creature. Most of the time those things get destroyed and another copy is important. Drawing a second copy of a Legendary land is almost always a dead draw.
Trust me when I say I understand that there is a line where Legendary is no longer a downside.
1
Legendary Land - Swamp 1B, T: Target player loses 1 life.
That card is too good. Being nonbasic and Legendary is not enough of a drawback. This card would replace a basic swamp in most decks that run them.
Anyways, rant over. I would like to change the red land but damage is so boring. Any ideas?
Overgrow was based on Song of the Dryads, which was printed just last year. I don't know how taboo a scaled down version of that effect is, honestly.
There are situations where legendary is a significant draw back, mostly when you really want multiples of said land out. But your lands don't suffer from this at all. Outside of the whole fetch-dual land mana base nearly every deck would gladly replace one or more of their basics with one of these lands so they are strictly better than a basic. The threshold on better than a basic isn't would I replace as many copies as I can, but is there any downside at all to replacing one basic with this.
If you don't like damage for red you could go with a pump that would be different from green, like +1/+0 and first strike or +2/+0 and haste.
Song of the Dryads was a color pie break. Yes, breaks still happen because some people like an effect so much that they do it regardless of the color pie. Its debatable whether or not green could get this effect for lands because this has mostly been done in blue.
Fetch-Dual Land mana bases are the mana bases of Magic. So you're talking about just Standard, then? So out of the 5 or 6 Standard decks that are good at any given time, each of them replaces a basic with a Legendary land IF they can use that land? I don't see how that's a problem. Not every deck can use these. We're both in agreement that you wouldn't run more than one in a given deck. That IS a significant drawback.
If you replace Legendary with ETBT, more decks run these and with more copies. That alone should say there is a drawback present.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
Fetch-Dual Land mana bases are the mana bases of Magic. So you're talking about just Standard, then? So out of the 5 or 6 Standard decks that are good at any given time, each of them replaces a basic with a Legendary land IF they can use that land? I don't see how that's a problem. Not every deck can use these. We're both in agreement that you wouldn't run more than one in a given deck. That IS a significant drawback.
If you replace Legendary with ETBT, more decks run these and with more copies. That alone should say there is a drawback present.
The better than a basic threshold isn't about power. It is about not undermining a key portion of the game. If it were power level then most lands wouldn't exist, nearly every dual land is in fact stronger than basics(if you need the color). If you have a problem with a design rule argue that the rule shouldn't apply here or that over all it isn't good, not that your lands don't break said rule when they obviously do. The basic test for being better than a basic is does it come into play untapped and tap for colored mana. If it does then it is 'better than a basic' because it now does everything a basic does while having some other ability.
Your lands don't have to ETBT they just can't both ETBUT and tap for colored mana without restriction. I'm not sure how limited you are on rules space with those abilities but making them produce colorless is the easiest fix if you don't want them to ETBT. If you have space for more rules you can have them always make colorless and make colored if you have the appropriate typed land. So "t: add C to your mana pool. If you control a plains add W to your mana pool instead.
I don't know what point you were trying to make with Valakut.
My very first response was saying they weren't about power. I don't see why you would be telling me that. Oboro, Palace in the Sky is not better than a basic because not every deck wants that effect. Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth is not better than a basic because not every deck wants that effect. I can go on with literally any Legendary land that produces colored mana. Not every deck wants what these lands have to offer. They are not better than a basic.
The Valakut link was to the poster before you asking which lands WotC said they wished were reworked as Legendary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
Not every deck wants what these lands have to offer. They are not better than a basic.
You might want to review the meaning of the words "better than basic".
It meants: producing colored mana with no drawback.
Legendary might be a drawback... in the sense that you can't have more than one in play. But these cards don't BENEFIT from having multiples in play, so that's not so much a drawback as they are non-issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
My very first response was saying they weren't about power. I don't see why you would be telling me that. Oboro, Palace in the Sky is not better than a basic because not every deck wants that effect. Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth is not better than a basic because not every deck wants that effect. I can go on with literally any Legendary land that produces colored mana. Not every deck wants what these lands have to offer. They are not better than a basic.
The Valakut link was to the poster before you asking which lands WotC said they wished were reworked as Legendary.
But not every deck wanting them is irrelevant. IF they ETB untapped and tap for colouyred mana without drawbacks(painlands etc.) and have another beneficial ability aswell they are not okay. It really is as simple as that. He iusn't telling you that oboro isn't better than a basic, he is telling you that the current design stance stos lands like that.
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
Here's the thing: There are no direct quotes to support any of what you are all saying. In fact, the only things I can find are from 2014 and earlier and they all support my stance. Heck, even the MTGSalvation Wiki calls out this exact situation by saying that Legendary on Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth is exactly why it isn't better than a Swamp. Even more, there is no "better than basic" meaning, Mondu. If you'd like to show me the lexicon where you're spewing baseless rhetoric from, I'd like to read it. Lastly, the only article I can find specifically calling out being better than a basic is from 2003, a year before Kamigawa mass-produces Lands with the drawback of being Legendary and way before Time Spiral where they did it again. People keep talking about how currently Legendary lands are a big no-no and that some time between an ancient article and now that has changed but there's no proof I can find of that.
@willows: The black land does nothing for Legacy Storm and a basic land is better for fetching. The white land does nothing for Modern Restore Balance and a basic is better for borderposts. I can very easily give examples for days for how, by your own definition, these are not better than basics.
I don't have a problem making these ETBT and non-legendary but "better than a basic" is not present here. I'm most likely not going to reply to this thread anymore because it's to the point where I can't answer everyone and you're even contradicting each other. I appreciate the input you've given me and I think it's time we moved on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
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.
I'm going to have to ask you for the same thing. Namely, "Every deck wants this has to offer." Show me where "legendary" is an acceptable drawback. No, the wiki is not an official site, so it doesn't count no more that your assertion than it does.
Don't like the fact that's it's from 2003? Then provide the direct quote that says they were wrong.
I'm most likely not going to reply to this thread anymore
Don't ask for things then run away when people ask the same from you.
SHOW ME THE DIRECT QUOTE SUPPORTING THE DEFINITON OP STRICTLY BETTER LAND IS "EVERY DECK WANTS IT."
Yes because we've all seen how WotC calls out not being better-than-basic, with tiny ass downsides such as having to lose life when you need the colour (The big daddy of which is obviously Mana Confluence, but that suffers from hurting you even if you don't need the mana), to just needing a land type in play. Because when you have such easily-obtainable untapped multilands, btb means nothing.
It is often a small drawback, hence why those duals are considered rather good. But it is a drawback nonetheless so I don't really see the point of the post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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
@Mondu: That would be the exact article I mentioned in my post, which came out a year before they printed a ton of cards where Legendary was the drawback, and then they did exactly the same thing a few years later in Time Spiral. I'm still waiting...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
I already provided the link. Not my fault if you don't accept it.
a year before they printed a ton of cards where Legendary was the drawback,
Legendary has ALWAYS presented itself as a drawback, even before that article. While the details of how legends have changed, ever since legends you couldn't get more than one of a specific name in play.
Now, stop deliberately avoiding answering and prove YOUR assertion and stop ignoring the rest of my post.
to reiterate: SHOW ME THE DIRECT QUOTE SUPPORTING THE DEFINITON OF STRICTLY BETTER LAND IS "EVERY DECK WANTS IT."
You can be a child or you can answer the question. You jumped in here being antagonistic for no real reason and now you're trying to worm your way out of a corner. I have answered your question multiple times but I'll spell it out real slow and I'll even throw in a quote from that same article!
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.
That bolded part there means that every deck that uses a basic Swamp would want to use my black land instead for it to be considered strictly better. Not a couple decks. Not even just one deck. Every single deck. That would also be the part of the same article I alluded to from 2003 as agreeing with me after you first chimed in.
"Show me where "legendary" is an acceptable drawback."
You've already admitted that Legendary is a drawback. I've showed you that in Kamigawa they accepted it and then again in Time Spiral. I'm going to assume you haven't read the rest of the thread because the contention was that RnD no longer considers Legendary a drawback, which I said there was no proof of. You don't want to consider it a drawback on land? Check out the Lantern control forums and see all of the discussions on whether or not to run two Inventors Fair or three.
You jumped in here being antagonistic for no real reason
... what?
Not every deck wants what these lands have to offer. They are not better than a basic.
You might want to review the meaning of the words "better than basic".
It meants: producing colored mana with no drawback.
THAT'S ANTAGONISTIC? Jesus.
You demand for hard quotes, and yet cannot provide your own. I'm not antagonistic -- you can't accept criticism, period.
Still no hard quotes to prove your definition of strictly better, despite me providing my own? Concession accepted. Now, go back to your safe space where mommy tells you you're a special snowflake and every who tells you you are wrong is a meanie.
I just gave you a direct quote. Every deck that wants shock would want lightning bolt instead. Every deck that wants a basic swamp would need to want my black land instead for it to be considered "better than a basic". If you don't believe the definition of "card" applies to land then that's on you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
I think Legendary is a bad drawback for cards since it doesn't add decision intensity to the decision on whether to include the first copy, but there is nothing unique about how lands interact with that. So I don't really get the reason to complain about OP. Legendary is an equally ineffective deterrent for including the first copy of Thalia, Heretic Cathar and for including the first copy of greenland five, but with both there is a quality-of-life benefit for Standard and Limited environments (restricted ability to deny blockers while curving out aggressive creatures and restricted ability to chain lucky pairs snagged in a sealed pool or draft, respectively).
If you mean that someone shouldn't feel like Legendary isn't the only drawback going on with the card and are trying to point out WotC wouldn't print a 3/2 first strike for 2W alongside Thalia in a set (which is true, they wouldn't, while they would turn around and print that card elsewhere in a heartbeat), then sure, you're right, but you're trying to blame OP for creating an entire environment for which he is only proposing a piece. By the law of charitable judgments, I assume OP would design the rest of his set to have at least punishment for cards lacking a basic land type (like Corrupt or Prairie Stream), and then the other downside remains meaningful in Limited, Standard, and of course Eternal where Blood Moon and Back to Basics hit tables.
I know land destruction can be boring, but with some work it can be fun too. What about changing the red land to "each player sacrifices a tapped nonbasic land" if you want to play around with that one?
Wet Swamp
Basic Land — Swamp T: Add U to your mana pool.
This card is exactly a Swamp except it also taps for U.
I'm playing a monoblack Commander deck. My deck specifically does not want this card at all. That doesn't change the fact that it is better than a Swamp, because it's the same as a Swamp except it does more than a Swamp too.
Your definition of "better than a basic" is way too restrictive and unrealistic.
@Willow: First, if your deck doesn't want your card, then it doesn't want Swamp. In Commander, Command Tower is strictly better than Mana Confluence. Outside of Commander, Mana Confluence is strictly better than Command Tower. That's a casualty of a very specific set of rules in a format separate from all other forms of magic. In my opinion, that's an example of "within reason" from my quote above.
Legendary Land
T: Add W to your mana pool.
3W, T: Put a 1/1 white Human Ally creature token onto the battlefield.
5WW, T: Put three 1/1 white Human Ally creature tokens onto the battlefield.
2
Legendary Land
T: Add U to your mana pool
2U, T: Return target creature you control to its owner’s hand.
5UU, T: Return target creature to its owner’s hand.
3
Legendary Land
T: Add B to your mana pool.
3B, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
5BB, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
4
Legendary Land
T: Add R to your mana pool.
2R, T: Each player sacrifices a land.
5RR, T: Target player sacrifices a land.
5
Legendary Land
T: Add G to your mana pool.
2G, T: Search your library for a land card, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
5GG, T: Search your library for a creature card, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Is a green Spreading Seas doable?
Overgrow 1G
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant land
When Overgrow enters the battlefield, draw a card.
Enchanted land is a Forest.
I like the scaling of the effects. The Red and Green ones feel wrong. Repeatable land destruction is not done nearly this efficiently, even if it is symmetrical. Green is both too strong and too weak on both of its effects, partially because how the first effect guarantees the second. It would be best if Red dealt damage and green pumped creatures. There are other possible effects but keeping with the simplicity of your other effects these would fit best.
A green Spreading Seas isn't exactly out of pie but it isn't an effect that green does. Terra-morphing is done almost exclusively in blue. If there was a good reason for it I could see green stretching to encompass this power.
Trust me when I say I understand that there is a line where Legendary is no longer a downside.
1
Legendary Land - Swamp
1B, T: Target player loses 1 life.
That card is too good. Being nonbasic and Legendary is not enough of a drawback. This card would replace a basic swamp in most decks that run them.
Anyways, rant over. I would like to change the red land but damage is so boring. Any ideas?
Overgrow was based on Song of the Dryads, which was printed just last year. I don't know how taboo a scaled down version of that effect is, honestly.
If you don't like damage for red you could go with a pump that would be different from green, like +1/+0 and first strike or +2/+0 and haste.
Song of the Dryads was a color pie break. Yes, breaks still happen because some people like an effect so much that they do it regardless of the color pie. Its debatable whether or not green could get this effect for lands because this has mostly been done in blue.
Fetch-Dual Land mana bases are the mana bases of Magic. So you're talking about just Standard, then? So out of the 5 or 6 Standard decks that are good at any given time, each of them replaces a basic with a Legendary land IF they can use that land? I don't see how that's a problem. Not every deck can use these. We're both in agreement that you wouldn't run more than one in a given deck. That IS a significant drawback.
If you replace Legendary with ETBT, more decks run these and with more copies. That alone should say there is a drawback present.
Your lands don't have to ETBT they just can't both ETBUT and tap for colored mana without restriction. I'm not sure how limited you are on rules space with those abilities but making them produce colorless is the easiest fix if you don't want them to ETBT. If you have space for more rules you can have them always make colorless and make colored if you have the appropriate typed land. So "t: add C to your mana pool. If you control a plains add W to your mana pool instead.
I don't know what point you were trying to make with Valakut.
The Valakut link was to the poster before you asking which lands WotC said they wished were reworked as Legendary.
a) Does this do more than adding M to your mana pool?
b) Is there a reason to use a basic instead of this?
If yes and no, then it's better than a basic.
You might want to review the meaning of the words "better than basic".
It meants: producing colored mana with no drawback.
Legendary might be a drawback... in the sense that you can't have more than one in play. But these cards don't BENEFIT from having multiples in play, so that's not so much a drawback as they are non-issues.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
But not every deck wanting them is irrelevant. IF they ETB untapped and tap for colouyred mana without drawbacks(painlands etc.) and have another beneficial ability aswell they are not okay. It really is as simple as that. He iusn't telling you that oboro isn't better than a basic, he is telling you that the current design stance stos lands like that.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Drawback
@willows: The black land does nothing for Legacy Storm and a basic land is better for fetching. The white land does nothing for Modern Restore Balance and a basic is better for borderposts. I can very easily give examples for days for how, by your own definition, these are not better than basics.
I don't have a problem making these ETBT and non-legendary but "better than a basic" is not present here. I'm most likely not going to reply to this thread anymore because it's to the point where I can't answer everyone and you're even contradicting each other. I appreciate the input you've given me and I think it's time we moved on.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/land-my-land-2003-03-31
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.
I'm going to have to ask you for the same thing. Namely, "Every deck wants this has to offer." Show me where "legendary" is an acceptable drawback. No, the wiki is not an official site, so it doesn't count no more that your assertion than it does.
Don't like the fact that's it's from 2003? Then provide the direct quote that says they were wrong.
Don't ask for things then run away when people ask the same from you.
SHOW ME THE DIRECT QUOTE SUPPORTING THE DEFINITON OP STRICTLY BETTER LAND IS "EVERY DECK WANTS IT."
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
It is often a small drawback, hence why those duals are considered rather good. But it is a drawback nonetheless so I don't really see the point of the post.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Legendary has ALWAYS presented itself as a drawback, even before that article. While the details of how legends have changed, ever since legends you couldn't get more than one of a specific name in play.
Now, stop deliberately avoiding answering and prove YOUR assertion and stop ignoring the rest of my post.
to reiterate:
SHOW ME THE DIRECT QUOTE SUPPORTING THE DEFINITON OF STRICTLY BETTER LAND IS "EVERY DECK WANTS IT."
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
That bolded part there means that every deck that uses a basic Swamp would want to use my black land instead for it to be considered strictly better. Not a couple decks. Not even just one deck. Every single deck. That would also be the part of the same article I alluded to from 2003 as agreeing with me after you first chimed in.
"Show me where "legendary" is an acceptable drawback."
You've already admitted that Legendary is a drawback. I've showed you that in Kamigawa they accepted it and then again in Time Spiral. I'm going to assume you haven't read the rest of the thread because the contention was that RnD no longer considers Legendary a drawback, which I said there was no proof of. You don't want to consider it a drawback on land? Check out the Lantern control forums and see all of the discussions on whether or not to run two Inventors Fair or three.
... what?
THAT'S ANTAGONISTIC? Jesus.
You demand for hard quotes, and yet cannot provide your own. I'm not antagonistic -- you can't accept criticism, period.
Still no hard quotes to prove your definition of strictly better, despite me providing my own? Concession accepted. Now, go back to your safe space where mommy tells you you're a special snowflake and every who tells you you are wrong is a meanie.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
If you mean that someone shouldn't feel like Legendary isn't the only drawback going on with the card and are trying to point out WotC wouldn't print a 3/2 first strike for 2W alongside Thalia in a set (which is true, they wouldn't, while they would turn around and print that card elsewhere in a heartbeat), then sure, you're right, but you're trying to blame OP for creating an entire environment for which he is only proposing a piece. By the law of charitable judgments, I assume OP would design the rest of his set to have at least punishment for cards lacking a basic land type (like Corrupt or Prairie Stream), and then the other downside remains meaningful in Limited, Standard, and of course Eternal where Blood Moon and Back to Basics hit tables.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I know land destruction can be boring, but with some work it can be fun too. What about changing the red land to "each player sacrifices a tapped nonbasic land" if you want to play around with that one?
Here is a card.
Wet Swamp
Basic Land — Swamp
T: Add U to your mana pool.
This card is exactly a Swamp except it also taps for U.
I'm playing a monoblack Commander deck. My deck specifically does not want this card at all. That doesn't change the fact that it is better than a Swamp, because it's the same as a Swamp except it does more than a Swamp too.
Your definition of "better than a basic" is way too restrictive and unrealistic.