or a spirit guide(one additional colored mana of their type for the turn). In case you're unaware how this would work, you tap the copy already in play for mana then play the copy in your hand(getting rid of the tapped copy), which could then tap for mana.
That is... a ridiculous comparison.
This is like the previous comment about an uncounterable Lotus Petal (also ridiculous). You're saying that playing and tapping a land, then putting a land into your graveyard is equivalent to playing a Simian Spirit Guide.
I mean, if we're going for absolutely overblown and specious comparisons, I might as well just say that Terminate is just a 2-mana Damnation. I mean, maybe target creature is the only creature on the board! Terminate is clearly broken.
So obviously this has drifted far past the point being made. I was not making a comparison for the purpose of gauging power level. I was making a comparison to better elaborate similar effects(in case your still don't see the similarity for some reason, both have you lose a card in your hand for one mana, if you have a problem with how strong spirit guide is and object to its use in this then that is a completely different problem). Once again you are the one who made specious statements about your lands claiming that copy 2-4 were only Urza's Bauble with mana fixing. That is what the grandeur ability does so if the cards were completely blank except for this effect then you would be correct.
Copy one = a basic of appropriate type
Copy two = Draw + mana fixing, or a Spirit Guide of appropriate color
Copy three = same as copy 2
Copy four = same as copy 3
OK, come on. If you're going to accuse me of not R my own FC, please first do me the favor of RTFC.
There is no Simian Spirit Guide effect. The Grandeur ability requires that you tap the land. You can't ramp with the ability. You can't activate the ability from your hand. You can't activate the ability if you haven't played copy #1. It's not free mana.
The Chromatic Sphere comparison is more apt, but only the mana cost is "free". And since you still need to spend a land drop to get copy #1 on the board before you can use the Grandeur ability for copies 2-4, "free" still comes with a lot of strings attached.
And while, technically, copies 2-4 can be played, they still eat a land drop, and either go to the graveyard or cause copy #1 to go to the graveyard the next time SBAs are checked, so I don't know what difference that makes. But, I suspect you know how the legend rule works.
This lead me to believe that you completely missed what I meant by a Spirit Guide effect so I elaborated
or a spirit guide(one additional colored mana of their type for the turn). In case you're unaware how this would work, you tap the copy already in play for mana then play the copy in your hand(getting rid of the tapped copy), which could then tap for mana.
You then went on to point out that under specific situations Terminate and Damnation preform the same function, then claimed that Terminate was clearly broken. If your going for technically true then you nailed it.
You keep jumping up and defending an over exaggerated version of what I am saying so I'm going to go back and make my actual point one more time. These break the 'better than a basic' rule. They are also very powerful and way too complex for common but the main problem is they break an important design rule. Your only actual response to this specifically was
Copy 1 is worse than its equivalent basic land (assuming a contemporary meta and not a 1993 meta). There is no incentive to run just one copy over its corresponding basic land. Thus, it avoids the reason why "legendary" usually isn't considered a drawback (because you can always just run one copy of, say, Eiganjo Castle and thereby negate its drawback more-or-less completely.)
Copies 2-4 can't be played, therefore they can't develop your mana base (unlike a basic land), and must be cycled away.
There is a tradeoff between land drop consistency and deck thinning here, that makes these neither strictly better nor strictly worse than basics. Maybe they're too good, I don't know, but if they are it's not because they violate the "better than a basic" rule.
Your first point is only true taking into specific meta games and interactions with other cards which is not the point of "better than a basic". Your second point was specious and when I corrected you, you blew my comment out of proportion and attacked this imagined comment. Your final point again walked right over "better than a basic" and went to strictly better which is so horribly defined it is irrelevant. "better than a basic" isn't about power level it is about undermining a core part of the game. If you feel that "better than a basic" isn't a good rule and basics should be regulated to the same tier as draft fodder than that is a reasonable argument to make. But that has not been your argument, you have instead taken the stance that your cards are somehow not "better than a basic" when it is easily demonstrated that they are. The tenets of "better than a basic" are simply
1) Does it enter untapped
2) Does it tap for colored mana
3) Does it have a downside
If your land answers Yes, Yes, No. Then it is better than a basic.
I love a good theorycraft discussion as much as the next designer, but there comes a point at which a debate such as this can only be solved by some good ole objective data - namely, the results of playtesting. I predict that these lands, though they're arguably a smidge better than basics, will prove to be balanced (and wouldn't be auto-includes in most decks). In fact, hitherto, I consider their viability dubious. So, who's going to playtest them first?
I love a good theorycraft discussion as much as the next designer, but there comes a point at which a debate such as this can only be solved by some good ole objective data - namely, the results of playtesting. I predict that these lands, though they're arguably a smidge better than basics, will prove to be balanced (and wouldn't be auto-includes in most decks). In fact, hitherto, I consider their viability dubious. So, who's going to playtest them first?
Agreed.
Though I think the bigger problem with this discussion has been that we have not distinguished between "strictly better" and "typically better". These lands are strictly better than basics, since they have extra abilities, no additional downsides, and the definition of strictly better generally doesn't account for the presence/use of other cards. Whether they are typically better is debatable though.
Strictly better is something to be especially careful of in regards to basic lands and legendary equivalents, since it is theoretically possible for those equivalents to hedge basic lands out of use. However, that's less of a danger here, since you need to run multiples of these lands in order to get their effects.
Their downsides as opposed to basics are that they are not searchable by typical green land-tutors, and that they are legendary, thus preventing multiple from being used. The second factor is offset by the grandeur ability that enables them to functionally have "Cycling 0" so long as you control one already, with the upshot of also serving as fixing when that function is used.
Since the legendary downside is considerably negated by the grandeur ability, the remaining downside is the lack of type and them being nonbasic, preventing search in most cases. For a green deck that wants to ramp by searching out more lands, this is a problem and would probably get these excluded from deck construction. However, if there are no basic or land type considerations in a given deck, I so no reason why these wouldn't be included over basic lands. This is especially true in highly aggressive, low-mana cost deck strategies which would relish the opportunity to cycle away unwanted lands later in the game when they risk running out of momentum. These would be highly desirable in place of basics in that case.
Imagine the following:
Red Land
Land
T: Add R to your mana pool.
When another land named Red Land enters the battlefield, sacrifice it.
Cycling R
When you cycle Red Land, add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
That's not strictly better than Forgotten Cave, but it's an upgrade in most situations. You remove the etb tapped downside and replace it with the legendary downside, then add an additional upside to mitigate the new downside, resulting in a substantially more powerful card.
There's a big reason why the grandeur ability isn't analogous to cycling, though: You need two copies of the card to pull it off, and one of them needs to be untapped and in play. You can just cycle Forgotten Cave whenever off any R.
These lands are interesting. While they are technically strictly better than a basic, a more nuanced analysis reveals that they are, in any real deck, strictly equivalent to a basic, or strictly different to a basic. On the one hand, you can use the typical argument against legendary colored untapped lands against these lands. The first copy of each of these lands is as good as a basic. However, the first copy is precisely as good as a basic as a result of the fact that the ability upside only cares about you having multiple copies. For all intents and purposes, the first copy of these lands is exactly a basic. This is different from other legendary colored untapped lands where the first copy is just strictly better than a basic as they all have extra utility on top of the normal 'tap for A' ability.
I think that if I had to answer the question of whether or not these lands are strictly better than a basic, I would say that they aren't. At the very least, they don't violate the spirit of the strictly better than a basic rule.
That said, these lands seem very powerful, likely too powerful, and I can't really imagine an environment that they would actually shine and be interesting in, assuming they weren't too powerful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
- Manite
Alright, well, this discussion has transcended into the hellscape that is arguing about the meaning of "strictly better" on mtgsalvation, a pastime that I have long ago abandoned as pointless.
Yes, these lands are strictly better than basics the same way Pillar of Flame is strictly better than Assault. However, if that's your definition of "strictly better", I will offer up my observation that your definition ignores a lot of relevant information on cards and it is not effective at separating balanced cards from unbalanced ones.
There's not a lot left to say if we can't agree on common terminology, so I'm going to stop beating my head against the wall, here. Cheers.
In a vacuum, these are not strictly better than basics. In a game, definitely not strictly better or worse than basics.
With other legendary lands, they have worthy extra abilities on their own. That's why replacing one basic with them is good. But in this case, why would you go out of your way to replace a single basic land with one of these?
Of course these demand that you play a whole set in your deck, unlike other legends. However, other legend lands have game-breaking abilities; whereas these are merely mana filter and cantrip. And unlike other similar cards, these are much harder to break in combo. Eggs and spirit guides can enable a huge turn with a burst of mana. These lands can't do that. So those comparisons are also moot (as much as the strictly better fallacy.)
Grandeur probably shouldn't require tapping, generally speaking; it messes with players' familiarity with mechanics. Grandeur is notable for having a myriad of effects relating to the card being discarded, so it also seems like a waste to have all of them do the same thing. I would have them ETB tapped and do something neat and color-specific with the grandeur. This would make them not-very-common, but even Kamigawa didn't have Legendary common cards. These should probably be at least uncommon.
Green: create a 1/1 saproling and gain 1 life.
Red: burn target creature and its controller for 1 each.
Black: return a creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
Blue: bounce target creature.
White: target creature you control gains protection from a color of your choice.
All of these are about as strong as a 1-mana or 2-mana instant/sorcery. These sorts of effects were more or less acceptable as '0-cost' or '1-cost' phyrexian mana instants, and most of the examples above are only slightly stronger. A land that enters the battlefield tapped is a good drawback to allow those effects.
Remember that Valakut, Nykthos, and Emeria are good examples of what more recent legendary lands do (I would argue that Gaea's Cradle and Tolarian Academy are bad examples on account of being overpowered) and that the effect can be quite powerful, especially if it's limited to the late game (which it's not for these grandeur lands, but the likelihood of having two of any one copy in your starting hand also holds them back).
I pointed out how this was wrong.
You followed that with
This lead me to believe that you completely missed what I meant by a Spirit Guide effect so I elaborated You then went on to point out that under specific situations Terminate and Damnation preform the same function, then claimed that Terminate was clearly broken. If your going for technically true then you nailed it.
You keep jumping up and defending an over exaggerated version of what I am saying so I'm going to go back and make my actual point one more time. These break the 'better than a basic' rule. They are also very powerful and way too complex for common but the main problem is they break an important design rule. Your only actual response to this specifically was
Your first point is only true taking into specific meta games and interactions with other cards which is not the point of "better than a basic". Your second point was specious and when I corrected you, you blew my comment out of proportion and attacked this imagined comment. Your final point again walked right over "better than a basic" and went to strictly better which is so horribly defined it is irrelevant. "better than a basic" isn't about power level it is about undermining a core part of the game. If you feel that "better than a basic" isn't a good rule and basics should be regulated to the same tier as draft fodder than that is a reasonable argument to make. But that has not been your argument, you have instead taken the stance that your cards are somehow not "better than a basic" when it is easily demonstrated that they are. The tenets of "better than a basic" are simply
1) Does it enter untapped
2) Does it tap for colored mana
3) Does it have a downside
If your land answers Yes, Yes, No. Then it is better than a basic.
...AND can be used at instant speed.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Agreed.
Though I think the bigger problem with this discussion has been that we have not distinguished between "strictly better" and "typically better". These lands are strictly better than basics, since they have extra abilities, no additional downsides, and the definition of strictly better generally doesn't account for the presence/use of other cards. Whether they are typically better is debatable though.
Strictly better is something to be especially careful of in regards to basic lands and legendary equivalents, since it is theoretically possible for those equivalents to hedge basic lands out of use. However, that's less of a danger here, since you need to run multiples of these lands in order to get their effects.
http://mtg.gamepedia.com/Strictly_better
Since the legendary downside is considerably negated by the grandeur ability, the remaining downside is the lack of type and them being nonbasic, preventing search in most cases. For a green deck that wants to ramp by searching out more lands, this is a problem and would probably get these excluded from deck construction. However, if there are no basic or land type considerations in a given deck, I so no reason why these wouldn't be included over basic lands. This is especially true in highly aggressive, low-mana cost deck strategies which would relish the opportunity to cycle away unwanted lands later in the game when they risk running out of momentum. These would be highly desirable in place of basics in that case.
Imagine the following:
Red Land
Land
T: Add R to your mana pool.
When another land named Red Land enters the battlefield, sacrifice it.
Cycling R
When you cycle Red Land, add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
That's not strictly better than Forgotten Cave, but it's an upgrade in most situations. You remove the etb tapped downside and replace it with the legendary downside, then add an additional upside to mitigate the new downside, resulting in a substantially more powerful card.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
At that point, might as well just drop Grandeur altogether:
T, Discard a land card: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
At that point zou don|t even need the "land" restriction any more. Just let them discard any card. Or maybe exile it.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I think that if I had to answer the question of whether or not these lands are strictly better than a basic, I would say that they aren't. At the very least, they don't violate the spirit of the strictly better than a basic rule.
That said, these lands seem very powerful, likely too powerful, and I can't really imagine an environment that they would actually shine and be interesting in, assuming they weren't too powerful.
- Manite
Yes, these lands are strictly better than basics the same way Pillar of Flame is strictly better than Assault. However, if that's your definition of "strictly better", I will offer up my observation that your definition ignores a lot of relevant information on cards and it is not effective at separating balanced cards from unbalanced ones.
There's not a lot left to say if we can't agree on common terminology, so I'm going to stop beating my head against the wall, here. Cheers.
With other legendary lands, they have worthy extra abilities on their own. That's why replacing one basic with them is good. But in this case, why would you go out of your way to replace a single basic land with one of these?
Of course these demand that you play a whole set in your deck, unlike other legends. However, other legend lands have game-breaking abilities; whereas these are merely mana filter and cantrip. And unlike other similar cards, these are much harder to break in combo. Eggs and spirit guides can enable a huge turn with a burst of mana. These lands can't do that. So those comparisons are also moot (as much as the strictly better fallacy.)
........................
Green: create a 1/1 saproling and gain 1 life.
Red: burn target creature and its controller for 1 each.
Black: return a creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
Blue: bounce target creature.
White: target creature you control gains protection from a color of your choice.
All of these are about as strong as a 1-mana or 2-mana instant/sorcery. These sorts of effects were more or less acceptable as '0-cost' or '1-cost' phyrexian mana instants, and most of the examples above are only slightly stronger. A land that enters the battlefield tapped is a good drawback to allow those effects.
Remember that Valakut, Nykthos, and Emeria are good examples of what more recent legendary lands do (I would argue that Gaea's Cradle and Tolarian Academy are bad examples on account of being overpowered) and that the effect can be quite powerful, especially if it's limited to the late game (which it's not for these grandeur lands, but the likelihood of having two of any one copy in your starting hand also holds them back).
- Rabid Wombat