(This is edited to account for some feedback received.)
Cycling lands from Urza's Saga weren't very good. Cycling lands from Onslaught were slightly better, but still not good enough to see much use outside of limited. The same was true for cycling deserts from Amonkhet - they were mediocre, but useful for limited. This is a disappointment in my opinion, because the concept of cycling lands could really go a long way towards mitigating something nearly everyone finds annoying: mana-screw and mana-flood.
Here I propose upgraded versions of cycling lands. My intent is to make these cards so profoundly good that they will be as popular in Standard as whatever cycles of rare multi-lands are available at the time (the currently available rare dual lands are "check lands" and "shock lands"). Rare dual lands have historically been so terrific that it has always been generally considered correct to include a full set of each available dual land in decks containing more than one color. Yet practically nobody complains that such dual lands are overpowered, probably because playing a land as an obligate mana source never feels unfair (unless it's an absurd card like Gaea's Cradle or Tolarian Academy, etc.)
But whereas dual lands are profoundly helpful at preventing color-screw, these cycling lands profoundly help prevent mana-screw and mana-flood.
Sample card: Ethereal Swamp
Land - Swamp
Ethereal Swamp enters the battlefield tapped if you don't control a basic Swamp.
(T: Add B.)
Cycling B (B, Discard this card: Draw a card.)
If such cards were in booster packs, I wonder how highly they would be picked in draft by expert players? I also wonder if such cards would be so strong that Standard two-color decks would run fewer that 8 rare dual lands in order to accommodate more of these ethereal lands?
Took a bit of rereading to realize that you are trying to do for mono-colored decks what checks and shocks do for multi-color decks. Personally, that text seems a bit clunky to me (comparing two values whenever you play one seems a bit odd). Not really sure what I'd replace it with, though...
Ethereal Swamp
Land
Tap an untapped basic swamp you control, : Add
Cycling
Ethereal Swamp
Land- Swamp
Ethereal swamp enters the battlefield tapped unless you control two or more basic swamps : Add
Cycling
Ethereal Swamp
Land- Swamp
Ethereal swamp enters the battlefield tapped unless you control two or more basic swamps : Add
Cycling
I like this option the best. Just picking a number and sticking with it is easier to track than a dynamic value that risks being confused by a cluttered stack of lands late in the game.
I suppose you are right about tracking a dynamic value being a nuisance. But I think that I'll reduce the requirement to just one basic Swamp, because I want them to also be worth consideration in decks containing more than 1 color.
Obviously I want these cards to definitely be a 4x in mono-colored decks. But I would also like to make these Ethereal lands good enough that people playing 2-color Standard decks would consider including some Ethereal lands, even if doing so means reducing the number of Checklands and Shocklands they play.
This would add an additional level of sophistication to crafting a mana-base for your deck - it's a trade-off between the robust color-consistency Checklands and Shocklands offer, and the mana-quantity-consistency Ethereal lands offer. Overall, I'm hoping these Ethereal lands won't make Checklands and Shocklands bad, but I would like for players to reconsider whether it's still correct to always play 4x of each Checkland and Shockland in their 2-color Standard deck.
I don't think these lands would be quite good enough to include in Standard 3+ color decks, but I could be wrong.
Cycling lands from Urza's Saga weren't very good. Cycling lands from Onslaught were slightly better, but still not good enough to see much use outside of limited. The same was true for cycling deserts from Amonkhet - they were mediocre, but useful for limited. This is a disappointment in my opinion, because the concept of cycling lands could really go a long way towards mitigating something nearly everyone finds annoying: mana-screw and mana-flood.
Here I propose upgraded versions of cycling lands. My intent is to make these cards so profoundly good that they will be as popular in Standard as whatever cycles of rare multi-lands are available at the time (the currently available rare dual lands are "check lands" and "shock lands"). Rare dual lands have historically been so terrific that it has always been generally considered correct to include a full set of each available dual land in decks containing more than one color. Yet practically nobody complains that such dual lands are overpowered, probably because playing a land as an obligate mana source never feels unfair (unless it's an absurd card like Gaea's Cradle or Tolarian Academy, etc.)
But whereas dual lands are profoundly helpful at preventing color-screw, these cycling lands profoundly help prevent mana-screw and mana-flood.
Sample card:
Ethereal Swamp
Land - Swamp
Ethereal Swamp enters the battlefield tapped if you don't control a basic Swamp.
(T: Add B.)
Cycling B (B, Discard this card: Draw a card.)
If such cards were in booster packs, I wonder how highly they would be picked in draft by expert players? I also wonder if such cards would be so strong that Standard two-color decks would run fewer that 8 rare dual lands in order to accommodate more of these ethereal lands?
Ethereal Swamp
Land
Tap an untapped basic swamp you control,
Cycling
Ethereal Swamp
Land- Swamp
Ethereal swamp enters the battlefield tapped unless you control two or more basic swamps
Cycling
Ethereal Swamp
Land- Swamp
Cycling
Basic Swampcycling
I don't really know.
I like this option the best. Just picking a number and sticking with it is easier to track than a dynamic value that risks being confused by a cluttered stack of lands late in the game.
Obviously I want these cards to definitely be a 4x in mono-colored decks. But I would also like to make these Ethereal lands good enough that people playing 2-color Standard decks would consider including some Ethereal lands, even if doing so means reducing the number of Checklands and Shocklands they play.
This would add an additional level of sophistication to crafting a mana-base for your deck - it's a trade-off between the robust color-consistency Checklands and Shocklands offer, and the mana-quantity-consistency Ethereal lands offer. Overall, I'm hoping these Ethereal lands won't make Checklands and Shocklands bad, but I would like for players to reconsider whether it's still correct to always play 4x of each Checkland and Shockland in their 2-color Standard deck.
I don't think these lands would be quite good enough to include in Standard 3+ color decks, but I could be wrong.