(This has been updated due to some feedback from others, specifically to address the fact that the previous versions of these cards were strictly better than basic lands. I added the text "As this land enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life." These cards are nevertheless still really great, despite not always being better than a basic land.)
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 in Magic: 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 dual 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 correct to include full sets of them in two-color decks, and to include 15+ of them in 3+ color decks. 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. They also incidentally protect a little against color-screw.
Ethereal Field
Land (common)
As Ethereal Field enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add W.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Plains.
Ethereal Isle
Land (common)
As Ethereal Isle enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add U.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Island.
Ethereal Marsh
Land (common)
As Ethereal Marsh enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add B.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Swamp.
Ethereal Peak
As Ethereal Peak enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
Land (common)
T: Add R.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Mountain.
Ethereal Woods
Land (common)
As Ethereal Woods enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add G.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Forest.
Ethereal Desert
Land - Desert (common)
As Ethereal Desert enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add 1.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic land.
These cards are obviously amazing. But they don't feel amazing/devastating in the same way that format-defining spells like Teferi, History of Benalia, Arclight Phoenix, or Experimental Frenzy do. And how it feels to play with/against cards is profoundly important, because, as a game, the primary goal of MtG is to be entertaining and enjoyable.
You will definitely want to include Ethereal Marshes in any Standard or limited deck containing basic Swamps, just as you would want to include (for example) Watery Grave in any Standard or Limited deck that casts black and blue spells. The exact number of ethereal lands you would want to include in a Standard deck entails finding the right balance between basic land counts and ethereal land counts. The presence of ethereal lands adds an additional layer of complexity to figuring out the optimal land configuration for your deck.
I'm guessing that a generic Blue-Black Standard two-color decks would start by trying something like: 4 Drowned Catacombs, 4 Watery Graves, 4 Ethereal Marshes, 4 Ethereal Isles, 2 Ethereal Deserts, 6 Swamps, and 6 Islands. Note that this is 30 lands, which is more than the default of 24. The presence of ethereal lands encourages you to play more lands because you can avert mana-flood by "cycling" ethereal lands. And since you are playing more lands, you are also protected against mana-screw.
Furthermore, since ethereal lands essentially "thin" your deck, your sideboard cards become a bit more accessible, which I regard as an additional benefit.
Ethereal lands are at common rarity because limited formats desperately need more mana consistency. It would also be nice to have these cards available in Pauper.
Why did I choose for ethereal lands to exile themselves rather than cycle like their counterparts in Urza's Saga, Onslaught, and Amonkhet? Because cycling for zero mana would profoundly empower the cards Hollow One, Life from the Loam, and Knight of the Reliquary, and it would also further empower the delve mechanic. There might still be ways in which these cards disproportionately empower specific deck archetypes, but my primary concern is improving mana consistency in Limited and Standard.
If such cards were in booster packs, I wonder how highly they would be picked in draft by expert players? I'm guessing they would be a typical 5th or 6th pick, at least in packs #2-3 when you have decided on which colors you are drafting.
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.
Hmmm? Slider was very powerful during it's time.
Anyway, these cards are not just profoundsly good, they're strictly better than a basic land
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.
Your lands tap for colored mana without a drawback.
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
There strength far exceeds what is acceptable on rare lands so putting them at common is completely ignoring what rarity means. Designing cards for pauper can't ignore what being common means. Or you might as well have cards like
Bob's Wrath 1WW
Sorcery
Spend only mana produced by basic lands to cast Bob's Wrath
Destroy all creatures.
Sure its stronger than anything that would be currently printed but pauper really needs cheap wrath spells and the added complexity of needing basic lands makes it not an auto include.
Your lands are auto 4-ofs in any deck that wants that color of mana as long as they run at least 1 basic.
The first and biggest problem these have is violating the better than a basic rule. The game shouldn't have any land that is strictly better than a basic. It can't come into play untapped and tap for colored mana without any type of draw back. Many people would say that the shock lands and stronger than basic lands but they aren't 'better than a basic' because there is a cost to having them enter untapped. Rare duel lands are always run in multicolor decks because the decks wouldn't function without them regardless of how power. Actual power level isn't an issue with what your trying to accomplish the Theros temples were so powerful for that standard, that decks not running the second color would include them because the scry was so good.
They should most certainly enter the battlefield tapped, for starters. Then just make them cycle for 0 if you control the basic land. I don't see why exiling here is necessary.
Then they are at least comparable to the onslaught cycling lands - neither strictly worse nor strictly better
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.
Hmmm? Slider was very powerful during it's time.
Anyway, these cards are not just profoundsly good, they're strictly better than a basic land
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.
Your lands tap for colored mana without a drawback.
Oops, I forgot the old Astral Slide/Lightning Rift deck. But I could still argue that the Onslaught cycling lands weren't great as standalone cards, but rather only great within the context of a deck that capitalizes on the cycling mechanic. And what I am intending to do is create lands that are indeed great for practically all Standard and Limited decks, irrespective of the deck's context.
As for being strictly better than a basic land, after reading that referenced Making Magic article, I completely acknowledge that I have sinned. I shall add a drawback to these lands, so that they aren't strictly better than basic lands... just usually better.
There strength far exceeds what is acceptable on rare lands so putting them at common is completely ignoring what rarity means.
Does rarity dictate how good a desirable a card should be? By the criteria set forth in an old article https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/rare-well-done-2002-02-25-0, I think these cards are fine at common, especially so because they aren't (7) Disruptive to Limited, and another principle is (10)Spread Good Cards Among All Rarities. I do acknowledge that rare cards in recent years tend to be better than common cards on average, probably for the sake of selling more boosters. But I am unaware of anyone in R&D formally stating that rares must be better than commons.
Your lands are auto 4-ofs in any deck that wants that color of mana as long as they run at least 1 basic.
I don't know if that's true. A deck with only 1 basic land and 4 ethereal lands probably wouldn't draw that single basic land often enough to capitalize on the ethereal "cycling" ability. I don't think I would run a full set of 4x an ethereal land unless I had at least 3-4x of the corresponding basic land.
As for violating the better-than-basic rule, that is something I evidently need to fix.
Because cycling for zero mana would profoundly empower the cards Hollow One, Life from the Loam, and Knight of the Reliquary, and it would also further empower the delve mechanic.
{Name of the card} comes into play tapped.
{T}: Add {} to your mana pool.
Exile this card from your hand, (...). Use this ability only if you control a {name of the card}.
At this point, I would prefer Legendary lands with a Grandeur mechanic, no ETB tapped.
{Name of the card} comes into play tapped.
{T}: Add {} to your mana pool.
Exile this card from your hand, (...). Use this ability only if you control a {name of the card}.
At this point, I would prefer Legendary lands with a Grandeur mechanic, no ETB tapped.
Grandeur?! That's actually a really smart idea, I reckon. It would work great for constructed formats, although it would be sadly irrelevant for limited.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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 in Magic: 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 dual 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 correct to include full sets of them in two-color decks, and to include 15+ of them in 3+ color decks. 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. They also incidentally protect a little against color-screw.
Ethereal Field
Land (common)
As Ethereal Field enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add W.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Plains.
Ethereal Isle
Land (common)
As Ethereal Isle enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add U.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Island.
Ethereal Marsh
Land (common)
As Ethereal Marsh enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add B.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Swamp.
Ethereal Peak
As Ethereal Peak enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
Land (common)
T: Add R.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Mountain.
Ethereal Woods
Land (common)
As Ethereal Woods enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add G.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic Forest.
Ethereal Desert
Land - Desert (common)
As Ethereal Desert enters the battlefield, you lose 1 life.
T: Add 1.
Exile this card from your hand: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you control a basic land.
These cards are obviously amazing. But they don't feel amazing/devastating in the same way that format-defining spells like Teferi, History of Benalia, Arclight Phoenix, or Experimental Frenzy do. And how it feels to play with/against cards is profoundly important, because, as a game, the primary goal of MtG is to be entertaining and enjoyable.
You will definitely want to include Ethereal Marshes in any Standard or limited deck containing basic Swamps, just as you would want to include (for example) Watery Grave in any Standard or Limited deck that casts black and blue spells. The exact number of ethereal lands you would want to include in a Standard deck entails finding the right balance between basic land counts and ethereal land counts. The presence of ethereal lands adds an additional layer of complexity to figuring out the optimal land configuration for your deck.
I'm guessing that a generic Blue-Black Standard two-color decks would start by trying something like: 4 Drowned Catacombs, 4 Watery Graves, 4 Ethereal Marshes, 4 Ethereal Isles, 2 Ethereal Deserts, 6 Swamps, and 6 Islands. Note that this is 30 lands, which is more than the default of 24. The presence of ethereal lands encourages you to play more lands because you can avert mana-flood by "cycling" ethereal lands. And since you are playing more lands, you are also protected against mana-screw.
Furthermore, since ethereal lands essentially "thin" your deck, your sideboard cards become a bit more accessible, which I regard as an additional benefit.
Ethereal lands are at common rarity because limited formats desperately need more mana consistency. It would also be nice to have these cards available in Pauper.
Why did I choose for ethereal lands to exile themselves rather than cycle like their counterparts in Urza's Saga, Onslaught, and Amonkhet? Because cycling for zero mana would profoundly empower the cards Hollow One, Life from the Loam, and Knight of the Reliquary, and it would also further empower the delve mechanic. There might still be ways in which these cards disproportionately empower specific deck archetypes, but my primary concern is improving mana consistency in Limited and Standard.
If such cards were in booster packs, I wonder how highly they would be picked in draft by expert players? I'm guessing they would be a typical 5th or 6th pick, at least in packs #2-3 when you have decided on which colors you are drafting.
Hmmm? Slider was very powerful during it's time.
Anyway, these cards are not just profoundsly good, they're strictly better than a basic land
and before you complain that they aren't
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/land-my-land-2003-03-31
Your lands tap for colored mana without a drawback.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Your lands are auto 4-ofs in any deck that wants that color of mana as long as they run at least 1 basic.
The first and biggest problem these have is violating the better than a basic rule. The game shouldn't have any land that is strictly better than a basic. It can't come into play untapped and tap for colored mana without any type of draw back. Many people would say that the shock lands and stronger than basic lands but they aren't 'better than a basic' because there is a cost to having them enter untapped. Rare duel lands are always run in multicolor decks because the decks wouldn't function without them regardless of how power. Actual power level isn't an issue with what your trying to accomplish the Theros temples were so powerful for that standard, that decks not running the second color would include them because the scry was so good.
Then they are at least comparable to the onslaught cycling lands - neither strictly worse nor strictly better
Oops, I forgot the old Astral Slide/Lightning Rift deck. But I could still argue that the Onslaught cycling lands weren't great as standalone cards, but rather only great within the context of a deck that capitalizes on the cycling mechanic. And what I am intending to do is create lands that are indeed great for practically all Standard and Limited decks, irrespective of the deck's context.
As for being strictly better than a basic land, after reading that referenced Making Magic article, I completely acknowledge that I have sinned. I shall add a drawback to these lands, so that they aren't strictly better than basic lands... just usually better.
Most of the time these allow you to play a 56-card deck and that's not okay.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Does rarity dictate how good a desirable a card should be? By the criteria set forth in an old article https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/rare-well-done-2002-02-25-0, I think these cards are fine at common, especially so because they aren't (7) Disruptive to Limited, and another principle is (10)Spread Good Cards Among All Rarities. I do acknowledge that rare cards in recent years tend to be better than common cards on average, probably for the sake of selling more boosters. But I am unaware of anyone in R&D formally stating that rares must be better than commons.
I don't know if that's true. A deck with only 1 basic land and 4 ethereal lands probably wouldn't draw that single basic land often enough to capitalize on the ethereal "cycling" ability. I don't think I would run a full set of 4x an ethereal land unless I had at least 3-4x of the corresponding basic land.
As for violating the better-than-basic rule, that is something I evidently need to fix.
Because cycling for zero mana would profoundly empower the cards Hollow One, Life from the Loam, and Knight of the Reliquary, and it would also further empower the delve mechanic.
{Name of the card} comes into play tapped.
{T}: Add {} to your mana pool.
Exile this card from your hand, (...). Use this ability only if you control a {name of the card}.
At this point, I would prefer Legendary lands with a Grandeur mechanic, no ETB tapped.
Grandeur?! That's actually a really smart idea, I reckon. It would work great for constructed formats, although it would be sadly irrelevant for limited.