Generally, they don't do artifact lands anymore after the whole Affinity debacle, but they have had lands that turn into artifacts as well as vice versa. The primary issue is that lands can't have mana costs as they aren't cast, meaning artifact lands are effectively free artifacts. But, what if the card was a land only while on the battlefield? Then it's cast as an artifact spell, and enters the battlefield as an artifact land. Cards that could be flavored as either artifacts or land, like the Mirrodin Towers and Trading Post, can use this tech to make fans of both happy.
Here's the white part of a theoretical cycle of such artifacts.
Knights' Castle3
Artifact
As long as ~ is on the battlefield, it's a land in addition to its other types. T: Add W. 3W, T: Create a 2/2 white Knight creature token with vigilance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I question the premise that this would actually make people who want these cards to be lands happy. Also, I assume you would be adding mana production to any such artifact thus making 'ramp' significantly more common and generally increasing the power level of such artifacts. Basically while interesting I fail to understand the actual benefit. It's like adding goblin to every spell that makes or is reasonably done by goblins. While it does make the spell slightly more interesting its mostly just excess trinket text that clutters the card. If you really wanted to do things like this I would prefer to use a mechanic like the brick counters from amonkhet. Make them lands that you build up things on.
So the question becomes, what good does it do for this to be a land only on the battlefield?
Artifact lands were important because their artifactness interacted with the environment. These would be relevant in a set that cares about lands (artifacts that are "bonus lands"), but they can't be tutored with land search, pulled from the graveyard with land recursion, or be discarded to effects that need lands to be discarded. The prior poster is right that the text doesn't create meaningful gameplay implications.
Direct artifact lands could work, if they were lands with downside in some sense, as the issue with the original cycle has a lot more to do with the fact that they were Moxen that ate your basic land slot, while Affinity was at full power. Metalcraft continues the issues of allowing Artifacts instead of lands. I could perfectly well see a cycle of Artifact lands treated like duel-lands, perhaps modeling after the BFA allied-colored duel-lands, where they come into play tapped if you control less than two basic lands, which pressures for multicolor to stick to "splashes" rather than being heavily in need of fixed colors. And, in this case, against piling up non-basic lands like Darksteel Citadel to further press the advantage of having multi-typed lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love Slivers, Myr, Saprolings and generally any creature type best served by spamming loads of tokens
Those would still be basically free fuel for Krark-Clan Ironworks, Arcbound Ravager, and the like. Instead of approaching these as "lands that are also artifacts", I was trying to approach them as "artifacts that are also lands". Which I've come to realize may well be a futile notion seeing as the artifact part adds a lot more than the land part. I just wish there was a way to bridge the gap for cards where it makes sense, like Dragon's Hoard, Dynavolt Tower, Trading Post, etc. At the very least they could introduce a new subtype for Structures to contrast with Vehicles, Equipment, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
The big thing is that there's a lot of zero-mana artifacts already, and most of them are Equipment. Which Puresteel Paladin and other equipment synergies make a genuine problem. Furthermore, may of the issues with free artifacts care that you'd get a lot of them, which Artifact Lands act as one extra per turn, and have the opportunity cost of not being able to play another land of any kind any turn you play one. Which, if they're taplands, means being a mana behind whenever you play one.
Anything that involves sacrificing it is actually sacrificing a land, with the practical ongoing effect of one less mana per turn. No matter how you frame it, it's always going to be an opportunity cost of playing this instead of a more normal land, or a different zero-mana Artifact that could, potentially, be more useful like Mox Diamond or Mox Opal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love Slivers, Myr, Saprolings and generally any creature type best served by spamming loads of tokens
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's the white part of a theoretical cycle of such artifacts.
Knights' Castle 3
Artifact
As long as ~ is on the battlefield, it's a land in addition to its other types.
T: Add W.
3W, T: Create a 2/2 white Knight creature token with vigilance.
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.
Artifact lands were important because their artifactness interacted with the environment. These would be relevant in a set that cares about lands (artifacts that are "bonus lands"), but they can't be tutored with land search, pulled from the graveyard with land recursion, or be discarded to effects that need lands to be discarded. The prior poster is right that the text doesn't create meaningful gameplay implications.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
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.
Anything that involves sacrificing it is actually sacrificing a land, with the practical ongoing effect of one less mana per turn. No matter how you frame it, it's always going to be an opportunity cost of playing this instead of a more normal land, or a different zero-mana Artifact that could, potentially, be more useful like Mox Diamond or Mox Opal.