~NAME~
Legendary Land [C] T: Add W to your mana pool. Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C] T: Add U to your mana pool. Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C] T: Add B to your mana pool. Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C] T: Add R to your mana pool. Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C] T: Add G to your mana pool. Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
These massively break the no better than a basic rule. The Grandeur ability is way too good on these, try to specialize them so decks don't mindlessly jam 4 of them.
No it specifically doesn't, and you've removed the downside of being legendary anyway.
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.
When considering if a land is better than a basic, not having the basic super type and not having the basic lands subtypes isn't viable because now you are building specific scenarios(metas) in which your card passes the text. So Copy one is exactly as good as a basic land of the appropriate type.
The downside I was speaking of was that for legendary lands usually copy 2-4 are 'dead' cards. You have removed this by replacing 'dead' draws with mana fixing and card filtering. Yes, you can build scenarios in which you wouldn't want to run 4 of this but that isn't the point of the 'better than a basic' rule.
Imagine for a moment this card
Once Land
land t: add W to your mana pool sacrifice this land at end of turn.
Discard Once land from your hand: Draw a card.
Every copy of your land after the first are essentially this card. On a powerlevel scale they are significantly over the top which is what my point about the Grandeur ability being too good was about in the first post. You might not run this as lands 22-26 in a deck that actually wants 26 lands but you would probably always run this as lands 20-24 in a deck that wants 20 lands. But this still is irrelevant to the first problem of breaking the 'better than a basic' rule.
This doesn't make sense. Copy 1 works EXACTLY like a plains. what's the drawback of copy 1?
There is no incentive to run just one copy over its corresponding basic land.
Actually there are corner cases where not being named "plains" works. I can't remember off the top of my head, though. Something something mixing snow islands with islands something.
Copies 2-4 can't be played, therefore they can't develop your mana base (unlike a basic land), and must be cycled away.
Except you aren't going to play them anyway, since they're better off being discarded, replacing themselves for free, better than cycling 0.
Also: common legendary makes no sense flavorwise. Grandeur was meant to remove the sting of having to play multiple legends which are all of the time (except for kamigawa). You went the other way around, using legendary to excuse an overpowered grandeur ability, then plopped the card at common.
The downside I was speaking of was that for legendary lands usually copy 2-4 are 'dead' cards. You have removed this by replacing 'dead' draws with mana fixing and card filtering. Yes, you can build scenarios in which you wouldn't want to run 4 of this but that isn't the point of the 'better than a basic' rule.
Mana fixing and card filtering, yes, exactly... but not another land drop. You don't get that choice.
Hey, you noticed! "Common legendary" was actually the design challenge I gave to myself, here (I have a second cycle that I'll probably post later today.)
I still think that people are seriously mis-evaluating how these cards will play. People think it's:
*Except you can't dump multiple copies from your hand on turn 1. And you have to play the first copy as a basic land, which adulterates their draw-filtering potential. And you don't get the peek effect.
Eeh. I don't think common legendary is something that should be done in the first place. After Kamigawa broke the uncommon-legendary taboo I wouldn't mind seeing these at uncommon, but there's still the "strictly-better"-than-basics issue. I concede they're not actually strictly better, as basic-ness and basic land types do count for something in most environments, but the fact of the matter is they're largely better and that's still unkosher. The Kamigawa strictly-better-than-basics are all at least a few dollars on the secondary market - Minamo, School at Water's Edge being significantly more than that - despite having seemingly marginal utility abilities. Granted, these are much harder to set up and use than the Minamo cycle, but they still need a rarity bump and some kind of tiny drawback.
Eeh. I don't think common legendary is something that should be done in the first place.
In all seriousness, though, there's a clear reason why these should exist at common, rather than any other rarity, and that is draft. Specifically, the marginal utility of these cards vs. basic lands in draft.
If you can be assured that you will only draft a single copy of one of these cards, you are literally better off drafting any other card. We're talking Wood Elemental. Draft that crap before you draft only a single copy of one of these. Because you have access to unlimited basics, there is NO incentive to ever draft only a single copy. You HAVE to go for a multiple copy strategy, and that means taking a risk. Honestly, I'm not sure whether the risk is worth it; I seriously wondered whether people would think that these were UNDERpowered before I posted this. How many, exactly, do you need to draft before that choice becomes preferable to drafting ANYTHING else and just running basics? I'd argue that it's >2, and probably >3.
If we're evaluating these in Constructed, I think we have to concede that rarity is essentially meaningless. Unless you consider secondary market value a meaningful aspect of game balance. Printing Snapcaster Mage at common doesn't change its power level.
I will once again object to the "strictly better than basics" criticism. They're not. Copy 1 is, essentially, a basic. Copies 2-4 can never be played as a basic, short of Mirror Gallery. It's not "basic + ability", it's "mode 1 = basic; mode 2 = ability", and you do not get the flexibility of being able to pick the mode.
I see your points and they're fair. Very fair. I'm coming around on these except for the common legendary thing. Still feels wrong. Any color mana + draw can make for game-swinging plays but it's hard to set up and volatile, to say the least, so these would need testing. Lots of testing.
I didn't say from the outset, but the idea is fascinating. I'm just not sure if there's any execution that would work for these.
You have somehow failed to realize that extra copies are in fact extra land drops. They aren't permanent land drops but that doesn't make them not land drops. So for the actual options on your cards we have this
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
Each extra copy isn't only mana fixing and card draw it is also a potential extra mana that turn, if you ignore this fact then they are significantly worse but still better than a basic.
Also 'better than a basic' isn't about actual power level it is about a direct comparison of a land to its respective basic and seeing if one is superior based on card text alone, not on random interactions with other cards. Your cards are literally basics with an extra ability stapled on so they are by definition better than a basic. If you disagree then point out how this is not true not how you don't agree with the policy. If you disagree with the policy then say why the policy shouldn't be followed. Don't claim something contradicted by obvious facts, which is that your cards are better than basics.
Lets look at a card
Worse than a basic
Legendary Land T: Add G to your mana pool 5,T,Exile a card from your hand: Gain 1 life
Nearly everyone would agree that you don't want 4 copies of this card in your deck because if you draw two or more of them they are worse than basics. However this land is better than a basic because it has another ability that can be useful. Not, is theoretically useful in some convoluted scenario, but simply can be useful. This isn't a power level discussion, it is a design rule discussion. On that topic your cards are way over the top for commons(complexity not power, rarity has nothing to do with power but everything to do with complexity).
Mechanically, I think these manage to skirt around the "strictly better than" design illusion principle. The flavor of a commonplace legendary land is just odd enough to take some getting used to.
Nonesense. For starts it's not "random interaction with other cards" it's interaction with copies of yourself.
This part was about basics being superior due to fetchland interaction. I'm not sure why your comparing it to something it literally can't be, you know the whole 'other cards' vs 'more of this card'.
I have yet to digest the whole thread to see what you guys came up with after I bailed almost two years ago, but I'm gonna.
Well, with the exception of Jetvans. He's been afk at least as long as you were. Would love to have him back though, so if you're lurking Jetvans... COME BACK!
As for Legends II. The thread didn't go much further. But I have been working on a three-hundred-three-card-all-hybrid-and-or-generic-mana-homage-to-Alpha-with-some-Time-Spiral-design-sensibilities set, some or much of which might port quite well into LII.
I think you've gone both too simple and too powerful.
Making the baseline equivalent to the function of a basic encourages putting in a set of these over four basics.
The draw a card clause is what worries me the most though, you're basically tacking a cantrip onto an uncounterable Lotus Petal.
What if you turned these into Karoo variants instead?
White Land
Legendary Land
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you return a nonlegendary land you control to its owner's hand. T: Add WW to your mana pool. Grandeur - Discard a card named White Land: Untap ~.
I think you've gone both too simple and too powerful.
Making the baseline equivalent to the function of a basic encourages putting in a set of these over four basics.
The draw a card clause is what worries me the most though, you're basically tacking a cantrip onto an uncounterable Lotus Petal.
What if you turned these into Karoo variants instead?
White Land
Legendary Land ~ enters the battlefield tapped.
When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you return a nonlegendary land you control to its owner's hand. T: Add WW to your mana pool. Grandeur - Discard a card named White Land: Untap ~.
Making the baseline equivalent to the function of a basic encourages putting in a set of these over four basics.
Only the first copy is equivalent to a basic. Copies 2-4 can't be played.
Copies 2-4 can be played, and this seems to be a problem you have when evaluating them. Copy 2-4 are either free Chromatic Sphere or Simian Spirit Guide, you keep assuming they are only the Sphere but the Spirit Guide function is very important.
Copies 2-4 can be played, and this seems to be a problem you have when evaluating them. Copy 2-4 are either free Chromatic Sphere or Simian Spirit Guide, you keep assuming they are only the Sphere but the Spirit Guide function is very important.
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.
Copies 2-4 can be played, and this seems to be a problem you have when evaluating them. Copy 2-4 are either free Chromatic Sphere or Simian Spirit Guide, you keep assuming they are only the Sphere but the Spirit Guide function is very important.
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.
I'm not accusing you of not RTFC, that would be crazy. It's more apt to say I'm accusing you of not understanding the card, which is a common event here.
You have repeatedly said that copy 2-4 can't be played and instead likened them to Uraz's Bauble. But that is only looking at one possibility. Your concern over not being able to play them is only a valid concern if they are the only land in your hand. Under that scenario they offer two separate functions, either as a sphere(mana fixing and card draw) 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.
If your complaint about not being able to play multiple copies is assuming you would play a different land that turn; then, yes, my comparison makes no sense, but neither does the complaint that you can't play more.
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.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C]
T: Add W to your mana pool.
Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C]
T: Add U to your mana pool.
Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C]
T: Add B to your mana pool.
Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C]
T: Add R to your mana pool.
Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
~NAME~
Legendary Land [C]
T: Add G to your mana pool.
Grandeur — T, Discard another card named ~NAME~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Draw a card.
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.
The downside I was speaking of was that for legendary lands usually copy 2-4 are 'dead' cards. You have removed this by replacing 'dead' draws with mana fixing and card filtering. Yes, you can build scenarios in which you wouldn't want to run 4 of this but that isn't the point of the 'better than a basic' rule.
Imagine for a moment this card
Once Land
land
t: add W to your mana pool sacrifice this land at end of turn.
Discard Once land from your hand: Draw a card.
Every copy of your land after the first are essentially this card. On a powerlevel scale they are significantly over the top which is what my point about the Grandeur ability being too good was about in the first post. You might not run this as lands 22-26 in a deck that actually wants 26 lands but you would probably always run this as lands 20-24 in a deck that wants 20 lands. But this still is irrelevant to the first problem of breaking the 'better than a basic' rule.
This doesn't make sense. Copy 1 works EXACTLY like a plains. what's the drawback of copy 1?
Actually there are corner cases where not being named "plains" works. I can't remember off the top of my head, though. Something something mixing snow islands with islands something.
Except you aren't going to play them anyway, since they're better off being discarded, replacing themselves for free, better than cycling 0.
Also: common legendary makes no sense flavorwise. Grandeur was meant to remove the sting of having to play multiple legends which are all of the time (except for kamigawa). You went the other way around, using legendary to excuse an overpowered grandeur ability, then plopped the card at common.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Mana fixing and card filtering, yes, exactly... but not another land drop. You don't get that choice.
Hey, you noticed! "Common legendary" was actually the design challenge I gave to myself, here (I have a second cycle that I'll probably post later today.)
I still think that people are seriously mis-evaluating how these cards will play. People think it's:
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
In all seriousness, though, there's a clear reason why these should exist at common, rather than any other rarity, and that is draft. Specifically, the marginal utility of these cards vs. basic lands in draft.
If you can be assured that you will only draft a single copy of one of these cards, you are literally better off drafting any other card. We're talking Wood Elemental. Draft that crap before you draft only a single copy of one of these. Because you have access to unlimited basics, there is NO incentive to ever draft only a single copy. You HAVE to go for a multiple copy strategy, and that means taking a risk. Honestly, I'm not sure whether the risk is worth it; I seriously wondered whether people would think that these were UNDERpowered before I posted this. How many, exactly, do you need to draft before that choice becomes preferable to drafting ANYTHING else and just running basics? I'd argue that it's >2, and probably >3.
If we're evaluating these in Constructed, I think we have to concede that rarity is essentially meaningless. Unless you consider secondary market value a meaningful aspect of game balance. Printing Snapcaster Mage at common doesn't change its power level.
I will once again object to the "strictly better than basics" criticism. They're not. Copy 1 is, essentially, a basic. Copies 2-4 can never be played as a basic, short of Mirror Gallery. It's not "basic + ability", it's "mode 1 = basic; mode 2 = ability", and you do not get the flexibility of being able to pick the mode.
I didn't say from the outset, but the idea is fascinating. I'm just not sure if there's any execution that would work for these.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
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
Each extra copy isn't only mana fixing and card draw it is also a potential extra mana that turn, if you ignore this fact then they are significantly worse but still better than a basic.
Also 'better than a basic' isn't about actual power level it is about a direct comparison of a land to its respective basic and seeing if one is superior based on card text alone, not on random interactions with other cards. Your cards are literally basics with an extra ability stapled on so they are by definition better than a basic. If you disagree then point out how this is not true not how you don't agree with the policy. If you disagree with the policy then say why the policy shouldn't be followed. Don't claim something contradicted by obvious facts, which is that your cards are better than basics.
Lets look at a card
Worse than a basic
Legendary Land
T: Add G to your mana pool
5,T,Exile a card from your hand: Gain 1 life
Nearly everyone would agree that you don't want 4 copies of this card in your deck because if you draw two or more of them they are worse than basics. However this land is better than a basic because it has another ability that can be useful. Not, is theoretically useful in some convoluted scenario, but simply can be useful. This isn't a power level discussion, it is a design rule discussion. On that topic your cards are way over the top for commons(complexity not power, rarity has nothing to do with power but everything to do with complexity).
Cross your fingers in terms of "back around"... I have a 15 month old kiddo, now, so free time is touch-and-go.
Mechanically, I think these manage to skirt around the "strictly better than" design
illusionprinciple. The flavor of a commonplace legendary land is just odd enough to take some getting used to.I have yet to digest the whole thread to see what you guys came up with after I bailed almost two years ago, but I'm gonna.
Well, with the exception of Jetvans. He's been afk at least as long as you were. Would love to have him back though, so if you're lurking Jetvans... COME BACK!
As for Legends II. The thread didn't go much further. But I have been working on a three-hundred-three-card-all-hybrid-and-or-generic-mana-homage-to-Alpha-with-some-Time-Spiral-design-sensibilities set, some or much of which might port quite well into LII.
Making the baseline equivalent to the function of a basic encourages putting in a set of these over four basics.
The draw a card clause is what worries me the most though, you're basically tacking a cantrip onto an uncounterable Lotus Petal.
What if you turned these into Karoo variants instead?
White Land
Legendary Land
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you return a nonlegendary land you control to its owner's hand.
T: Add WW to your mana pool.
Grandeur - Discard a card named White Land: Untap ~.
i think with just ETBT is OK
That's like calling a Mountain an uncounterable Mox Ruby.
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.
You have repeatedly said that copy 2-4 can't be played and instead likened them to Uraz's Bauble. But that is only looking at one possibility. Your concern over not being able to play them is only a valid concern if they are the only land in your hand. Under that scenario they offer two separate functions, either as a sphere(mana fixing and card draw) 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.
If your complaint about not being able to play multiple copies is assuming you would play a different land that turn; then, yes, my comparison makes no sense, but neither does the complaint that you can't play more.
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.