New players aren't idiots; they just don't have an accurate cost-benefit model about how bad various drawbacks are because they're not familiar with the game's intricacies yet.
I agree. I'm not trying to suggest they are, I'm just trying to divine what the designers are thinking when it comes to this. I keep looking at the shock lands, I think the fact that the reminder text is on there (this can be tapped for x or y) really speaks to the fact that there is room for change when it comes to basic lands. I've never liked the textless versions (I mean besides the extended art ones, I mean the standard ones with the symbol.) You shouldn't need reminder text to remind you that a land can be tapped for mana. Under current templating, dual lands would have a text box that says something like
"When ~ this comes into play, do X or it CIPT." or whatever...and that's it. I think that is bad templating.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Marvel Attacktix - Game Developer
Transformers Bot Shots - Game Developer
The Avengers - Loki's Mercenaries
Erimir: My concern, really, is that 'being able to tap for 2 colors of mana on the first turn' and 'not strictly better than a basic land' are highly competing objectives. There are a couple of ways to do this, but here's one method.
You seem to be confused as to what "not strictly better than a basic land" means. For our purposes, it means that absent considerations of whether it has a basic land type, or whether it's affected by non-basic hate (since those issues will always mean that a non-basic isn't strictly better than a basic, since it can be affected by Wasteland, Price of Progress, Blood Moon, etc.), you won't always prefer to have the dual land, even if you're using its colors.
For example, with shocklands, if I'm low on life and I need mana this turn, I'd rather draw a basic. Or if for example, I wanna play a 6 drop, I have my colors, but I only have 5 lands, I'd much rather draw a basic than a shockland. Even if I can afford to take the 2 points, I'd really rather not. So shocklands aren't strictly better.
But even tho they're not strictly better, they're still very, very good, so good in fact, that most two color decks will run them without thinking about it. We've gotten hints that the new lands are at least on the level of painlands.
Whereas the one you've suggested (play with your hand revealed) has such a strong drawback that I'd really much rather play with painlands. Painlands are better at the beginning since I'd rather take a couple points than reveal my whole hand, and better late in the game since you can use the colorless portion and have basically no drawback at all. Not only that, but as I said, they simply make the game less fun, which is not a trivial consideration. Removing the fun of having information hidden from your opponent in order to play two-color decks is not something WotC is likely to do.
Generally speaking, if dual lands are made for color-fixing your mana (and this seems to be the case), then to keep them from being 'strictly' better than basic lands, you need to either make them so that the player either can't or doesn't want to use them too much.
See, here's your problem. Just because it's not strictly better doesn't mean that the land won't be much much better than basics in general. That's why they're rares. There have to be times (ignoring, as I said, interactions with non-basic hate and such) where you'd rather draw the basic land. That's all.
The Telepathy land idea is just not at a rare power-level.
Another method for 'balancing' them is delaying their arrival, which is the entire CIPT department. I guess my concern with 'X or CIPT' is that the formula, as it stands, doesn't help us. We're trying to find X; we already know the CIPT is apparently a way to balance duals, and it's not the primary method that they chose.
What do you mean it's not the primary method that they chose? They've used that on the shocklands (one of the best dual cycles they've made), Invasion taplands, Coldsnap taplands, Alara shardlands, Tempest enemy painlands and the Lorwyn tribal lands. With the shocklands and tribal lands, we've seen that they consider a optional/conditional CIPT to be good enough to print at rare.
Sure, they've done other things, but it's hardly as if it should be considered off-limits. There's a very good possibility that the M10 duals will involve CIPT.
Offering the choice of CIPT or something else just means that we have to find the something else, and so I dispense with it, as this is a searching thread.
the core set isn't being designed to be significantly simpler than regular expansions anymore.
*fixed*
I agree with you, but the simple fact that the core set will only contain evergreen keywords means that it will be at least a little simpler than block expansions.
be? New players would love them because they only have one of that particual card anyhow (it is rare after all) and it never occures to them that thier opponenents might play the same land. Yet it is a significant disadvantage... is it enough? too much? I wish there was a better way to Brothers Yamazaki it...
Offering the choice of CIPT or something else just means that we have to find the something else, and so I dispense with it, as this is a searching thread.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
It means that finding "When ~ comes into play discard a card." isn't any different then finding "~ comes into play tapped unless you discard a card." because the "or comes into play tapped" rider can be added to any other comes into play drawback. Thus there isn't really any point in discussing if the ridder will or will not be applied, its the other part of the drawback that we should be looking for.
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
An idea: Ocean Trench
Land [r] T: Add U or B to your mana pool.
When CIP, an opponent puts a land card into play tapped.
Definetly FAR FAR FAR underpowered, but something similar could be printed. Maybe.
Maybe, with a "basic land" clause, it could be playable in the right format. However, it's a bit too good in control, and pretty suck in aggro... won't see print.
It means that finding "When ~ comes into play discard a card." isn't any different then finding "~ comes into play tapped unless you discard a card." because the "or comes into play tapped" rider can be added to any other comes into play drawback. Thus there isn't really any point in discussing if the rider will or will not be applied, its the other part of the drawback that we should be looking for.
Ok that makes sense. Well, while it is true that the creativity comes in thinking of the other part of the drawback, for power level issues, you do need to discuss the rider.
If you're proposing a cycle that would, frankly, be kinda crap, then you should consider if perhaps it would be playable with the optional CIPT. Proposing it without the rider and insisting that's a viable design and dismissing discussion of the rider isn't really productive...
That actually interests me. What I would like to see though, is this concept, paired with Flagstones of Trokair. Something like:
Serra's Grove
Legendary Land
T: Add G or W to your mana pool. When ~ is put into a graveyard from play, search your library for a basic forest or plains and put it into play tapped. Then shuffle your library.
Too powerful? The only immediate drawback I see is that having a whole deck full of these would allow for a lot of deck thinning, and it would pretty much ruin any future land destruction cards. However, this would also push the use of more basic lands in decks (which would support the theorized "back to basics" theme that people expect the next block to have), as well as helping Domain and other things.
I don't know. I'm sure there are plenty of unseen problems here that I'm not noticing. It sounds interesting, but I'm no card designer and I only play T2/casual, so I don't exactly know how this would affect older formats.
That actually interests me. What I would like to see though, is this concept, paired with Flagstones of Trokair.
Lots of people already think Flagstones of Trokair is too strong (it is so close to strictly better then a basic land) I don't see a dual land version of Flagstones seeing print, but giving it basic-land cycling might be possible (for say GW?).
Just a thought...maybe an Imprint land kinda like Chrome Mox? That would have the potential to be a 5 colour land.
We already know its a Dual land cycle, not a 5-color land, and loosing a card isn't my idea of a reasonable cost for a dual land... (also, the mox is acceleration not just fixing making it even more worthwild to pay the high cost...)
(U/B) is :symbu: or :symub: and the same is true for the other 9 hybrid symbols with their two colors in for the last 2 leters of the code. ((2/B) and co are :sym2b:)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B) T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
You shouldn't need reminder text to remind you that a land can be tapped for mana.
Why not? People come up with silly and counter-productive ideas about when and why you should use things like reminder text.
The time to use reminder text is when it will help a card be easier to understand and more elegantly worded. A dual land with basic land types benefits from this reminder text because it helps the player always remember exactly what the card does, quickly and easily. It's just like the "card type" reminder text that they print on spells like Tarmogoyf -- it's there so you never have to think any harder than necessary about exactly how the card works.
I basically think worrying about something like this would be a terrible reason not to make use of this design space.
Every indication we have suggests that the aim is now to keep the overall complexity of all sets pretty much comparable to one another.
I agree with you, but the simple fact that the core set will only contain evergreen keywords means that it will be at least a little simpler than block expansions.
Not really. Mercadian Masques block had only evergreen keywords, but it wasn't any less complex than, say, Ravnica. There are plenty of mechanics and individual card designs which are complex and don't rely on keywords to be so.
Pretty darn bad. We discussed this in the old thread -- legendary lands like this would be pretty useless for actually mana-fixing your deck because they'd start being dead draws after the first, and in tournament environments everyone would be blowing each other's up.
I really don't think newer players would prefer a land that doesn't always tap for mana, and isn't a simple concept as the 'go to' for what a dual should be.
As far as a drawback goes, it is rather uneven. We have the following qualifiers on mana from lands: Multicolored spell, creature spell, artifact spell, elemental spell/activation cost...
The last one lets you tap for colorless (so it is never useless), and is the most recent of these to be a rare. Ziggurat is an uncommon, so it can have such a conditional tap. Pillar of the Paruns is a rare in a multicolor block, wasn't played much at all.
The above land could be an uncommon. If you play 4 of them in a deck and see more than one, you are going to be upset. (I somewhat regularly see 3 of certain nonbasics when I play, I am usually not pleased by this, but it doesn't lose me games because of not being able to tap them at all)
If WoTC is going to make a point that new players don't like taking damage from lands, (Or if it turns out to be a front to balance life matters theme in the future) they wouldn't be able to argue effectively that a land that only sometimes can tap for mana is something a new player likes. The drawback is also ehh in that if you have multiples out, anything past the first is likely useless. WoTC wants people to play 4 of these.
I asked a few people at FNM how they thought about the revealing lands and the excommunicate lands.
Almost everyone thought revealing stuff from your hand is not a big deal, and the excommunicate land was fair for what it allowed you to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Plains Spyland
Land - Plains Island
When Plains Spyland comes into play, look at the top five cards of your library. You may reveal a white or blue card from among them. If you don't, Plains Spyland comes into play tapped.
Index is a single blue mana but allows for rearranging...this doesn't, so is worth less than one mana. However, is it too conditional? It doesn't result in any actual disadvantage, but you're not always going to get it untapped.
Plains Spyland
Land - Plains Island
When Plains Spyland comes into play, look at the top five cards of your library. You may reveal a white or blue card from among them. If you don't, Plains Spyland comes into play tapped.
Index is a single blue mana but allows for rearranging...this doesn't, so is worth less than one mana. However, is it too conditional? It doesn't result in any actual disadvantage, but you're not always going to get it untapped.
I like it, but I think it should be the top two or three that get revealed instead of the top five. Unless you're flooded or you're playing more than two colors, you should be able to have your land come into play untapped. It's not too conditional to me, but I don't know if being able to see your next few draws is actually too powerful or anything like that.
I like it, but I think it should be the top two or three that get revealed instead of the top five. Unless you're flooded or you're playing more than two colors, you should be able to have your land come into play untapped. It's not too conditional to me, but I don't know if being able to see your next few draws is actually too powerful or anything like that.
The thing about this drawback is that you don't have control over it.
You can't rely on it.
For example, my Mayael edh deck has 22 creatures to trigger off of her.
That is between 1/4 and 1/5 of the deck.
I don't hit a creature every once in awhile. It isn't a gimme.
People hit all lands off Hideaway lands sometimes.
For these lands to be playable, the drawback has to be in the player's control, and not left up to chance.
And to bring up the new player thing again, it doesn't promote getting new players to have a drawback that is not in their control, and will randomly mess up their tempo, when it can be a drawback entirely in their control.
Also, looking at the top few cards of your deck is a pretty good thing, so it add doesn't add up nicely enough.
Interesting idea though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I don't know if the first would see any play, since decks need to hit their colors first turn, and if they can't, then they're behind at least a turn with that, which could cost them the game (not to mention, these will be rare; thus, the power level must be at the rare level).
The second one is just too good. Fix your mana on your first turn AND thin out your deck? I'll take 20 of each, please.
Honestly, though, I'm totally stumped. I still like my latest idea (but it's too inelgant) and Urza's, but I don't know if those would be at the proper power level that Wizards is looking for...
Really, deck thinning is what happens when you use a onslaught fetchland to get an alpha dual. You're removing a nonland card from the game that probably matters and thus you have less playable cards because NO ONE LIKES GETTING LANDFLOODED. I would like to see that land printed but I doubt it will.
I would like index lands personally very interesting idea...although they can be almost too good getting to see and set up for what you'll be drawing next.
The thing about this drawback is that you don't have control over it.
You can't rely on it.
For example, my Mayael edh deck has 22 creatures to trigger off of her.
That is between 1/4 and 1/5 of the deck.
I don't hit a creature every once in awhile. It isn't a gimme.
People hit all lands off Hideaway lands sometimes.
For these lands to be playable, the drawback has to be in the player's control, and not left up to chance.
And to bring up the new player thing again, it doesn't promote getting new players to have a drawback that is not in their control, and will randomly mess up their tempo, when it can be a drawback entirely in their control.
Also, looking at the top few cards of your deck is a pretty good thing, so it add doesn't add up nicely enough.
Interesting idea though.
I understand your point. My opinion is that this kind of land would be somewhat if not pretty reliable if your deck was built in a way that to maximize your chances. In other words, this land would promote two color decks. I don't know if that's the kind of thing the good people at Wizards would want to do, but that's what this land would do. Your logic makes complete sense, though. The probability of having this land come into play untapped is pretty high, but it isn't controllable past proper deckbuilding...So yeah.
The problem with the index lands are ... I play one .... look at the top five and now i know the bottom 3 cards are irrelevant in this matchup and I fetch to shuffle. This feels better than brainstorm. Honestly I think wizards is going to start thinking more about legacy because of how popular the format is (see Gp Chicago).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When light no longer rose to kiss me,
I swore to tear Heaven asunder
As flights of fallen angels wished me
Godspeed on the Devil's Thunder.
Thanks Magus of the Sheep for this great border!
2009 ....
Top 8 Regionals
Top 32 GP Chicago
PTQ Top 8's - 2
TopOfDeckLand
Land
When ~card~ comes into play, reveal the top card of your library. If it is blue or black, ~card~ comes into play untapped. If it is a land, you may put that card on the bottom of your deck. T: Add or to your mana pool.
Or something like
Reveal
Land
When ~card~ comes into play, you may reveal up to two blue, black, or multicolored cards from your hand. T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or blue card. T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or black card.
Reveal
Land
When ~card~ comes into play, you may reveal up to two blue, black, or multicolored cards from your hand. T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or blue card. T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or black card.
I like the idea of second one. Problem is just memory issue involved. Maybe it can be solved by counters? Like the art can have 2 mana symbols, if it can get U, put 1 counter on the U symbol and vise versa?
TopOfDeckLand
Land
When ~card~ comes into play, reveal the top card of your library. If it is blue or black, ~card~ comes into play untapped. If it is a land, you may put that card on the bottom of your deck. T: Add or to your mana pool.
Or something like
Reveal
Land
When ~card~ comes into play, you may reveal up to two blue, black, or multicolored cards from your hand. T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or blue card. T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or black card.
Chance shouldn't be involved in these lands becoming untapped, as I said.
Also, being able to dump a land isn't much consolation on the first turn when you are staring at a useless tapped land, IMO.
The second land is far too wordy, and the entire card would function just as well if it was "If you don't this comes into play tapped", and it didn't matter what you revealed or not when you are tapping for mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I like the idea of second one. Problem is just memory issue involved. Maybe it can be solved by counters? Like the art can have 2 mana symbols, if it can get U, put 1 counter on the U symbol and vise versa?
That could put a lot of text on the card if I'm reading that right.
CARD
Land
When ~CARD~ comes into play reveal up to two blue, black, or multicolored cards. If you revealed a blue card, put a blue counter on ~CARD~. If you revealed a black card, put a black counter on ~CARD~. If you revealed a multicolored card, put a blue counter and a black counter on ~CARD~.
(Put tapping for mana here)
Seems much less elegant.
Maybe a hideaway-type ability.
CARD
Land
When ~CARD~ comes into play, you may remove a blue or black card from your hand from the game face-up. You may play the removed card as if it was in your hand. T: Add U to your mana pool. Play this ability only if there is a blue card removed from the game. T: Add Bto your mana pool. Play this ability only if there is a black card removed from the game.
Imprint - When ~ comes into play, you may remove a card in your hand from the game (face down?). You may return the removed card to your hand at any time.
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
: Add X & Y to your mana pool. Play this ability only if there is a card imprinted on ~.
Lands with block-specific keywords may be fine designs for block-specific lands, but they won't make it into the core set. It's remotely possible that something very similar to a simple one would make it, though. (eg. no Scry, but possibly "When ~ CIP, each opponent looks at the top card of his/her library and may remove it from the game.")
I think the reason new players don't like painlands is because they have a general aversion to cards with drawbacks. They look at them and think "I don't want my own cards to deal damage to me!" Cards with drawbacks can make a bad first impression, and it takes experience to realize that the pros often outweigh the cons. This may also apply to lands that can conditionally destroy/sacrifice themselves, which gives me slight doubts about the viability of fetchlands to meet this condition, but for the sake of argument I won't rule them out. A card that helps the opponent instead is less likely to trigger this reaction, even though any experienced player is likely to recognize it as the balancing mechanism that it is.
Anyways, this leads me to believe that there are basically four categories of lands that are real possibilities: fetchlands, lands that give information, lands that only produce colored mana under some specific condition, and lands that help the opponent do something.
Obviously they can't be too complex, and can't be some kind of niche card. I don't necessarily think, by the way, that being unable to give both colors on turn 1 would make a land especially unusable in aggro decks, since control/combo decks need their colored mana on turn 1 as well (Duress, Force Spike, Spell Snare, Sleight of Hand, PTE, etc.). CIPT lands have proven to be viable in constructed, even in aggro decks. For example, modern B/W token decks in Standard play Arcane Sanctum. So, it is my opinion that failing to produce both colors turn 1 would not make them niche cards. Of course, most viable designs will make this a moot point.
Now I happen to think that lands that give information to the opponent are a longshot, because short of revealing your entire hand, information alone simply isn't a sufficient drawback. Revealing one or two cards that you'll play immediately thereafter is a non-drawback for aggro decks. Others may and probably will disagree. Of course, this category overlaps some of the others and could combine with conditionality to make viable designs, but I digress. I still consider them a longshot, because the other three categories are much richer veins of design.
So anyways, here are my conclusions:
1) These lands may help the opponent in some small way that is not life-related. (Damage is specifically verboten and lifegain is a non-drawback for control) This probably means some kind of small card-quality effect, like "When this CIP, each opponent may look at the top three cards of his/her library and put them back in any order." but could conceivably be something else small like giving an opponent's creature a +1/+1 counter or something.
2) They could be fetchlands. This absolutely requires a drawback. My opinion is that being only able to search for basic lands is not sufficient. Like I said above, I wonder if new players will think "I don't want to sacrifice my lands!" but nonetheless, fetchlands are a tried-and-true design, and certainly fit the needs of the set in every other way, provided they have some reasonable drawback and lack complexity. I almost don't want to count this as a separate category, since they need some kind of additional drawback that may require looking at the other categories, but could involve paying mana or some other cost instead that would otherwise be unsuitable for dual land. Could sac two lands to fetch two.
3) They could produce colored mana only if you meet the correct conditions. This requires that the condition be something pretty simple that you'll usually be able to do. Nimbus Maze was barely playable, so the condition needs to be easier than that. I happen to think having a card of the other color in your hand is a fine one, but there are plenty of others possible. Using counters for a Gemstone Mine-style land falls into this category, as does CIPT.
4) It could be some combination of the above, or a choice between two or more drawbacks, but pretty much any drawback outside of these categories is a longshot.
5) The drawback will not be anything random or capricious. (eg. ":symtap:: Add or to your mana pool if your life total is an even number. Otherwise, add to your mana pool.") No coin-flipping or anything else that's likely to irritate a large segment of the player base. It will be symmetrical, meaning that whatever conditions and drawbacks apply to one color will apply equally and identically to the other. It will also not be something that would be significantly better or worse against a specific color or common category of decks, but we can be somewhat lenient with that; after all, taking pain is rarely a drawback against control, and those lands were fine.
6) There will either be a cycle of allied color lands only, or else a cycle of ten for each "guild" combination. No weird distributions like the Tainted lands. No differences in the drawbacks like the Future Sight cycle.
As for the "wow" factor, I'm actually hoping for and expecting lands that won't wow me. Why? Because it would take something really outside-the-box to do that, and the box is there for good reasons. To "wow" me with a land would require that they violate our expectations in some way or another; if they don't, there would be no novelty to it, and hence no "wow". I'm hoping for a design that won't particularly surprise anyone, and will just be simple and all-around useful. Here's hoping they'll live up to my plain old boring expectations.
Karma doesn't exist. You can't depend on it. If you count on it for justice or catharsis, you will find that you have placed your emotions on very unstable ground; and you will either repeat your disappointment in society over and over, or you will engage in a persistent delusion to protect yourself from that feeling.
Anyways, this leads me to believe that there are basically four categories of lands that are real possibilities: fetchlands, lands that give information, lands that only produce colored mana under some specific condition, and lands that help the opponent do something.
I want to rule out fetchlands because I don't think they are dual lands. A real dual land can give me either color whenever I want. To take that away from the Core set would be to entirely remove duals from the core set.
Maro wrote recently about how dual lands can produce two different colors. I think that supports my position to some extent.
I highly doubt there will be counters on the lands, at least I hope not. Vivid lands are cool but all this counters are cluttering up my table and my lands usually finish off the game with two rows.
I can't imagine any better type of land out there Wizards. Please prove me wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree. I'm not trying to suggest they are, I'm just trying to divine what the designers are thinking when it comes to this. I keep looking at the shock lands, I think the fact that the reminder text is on there (this can be tapped for x or y) really speaks to the fact that there is room for change when it comes to basic lands. I've never liked the textless versions (I mean besides the extended art ones, I mean the standard ones with the symbol.) You shouldn't need reminder text to remind you that a land can be tapped for mana. Under current templating, dual lands would have a text box that says something like
"When ~ this comes into play, do X or it CIPT." or whatever...and that's it. I think that is bad templating.
Transformers Bot Shots - Game Developer
The Avengers - Loki's Mercenaries
For example, with shocklands, if I'm low on life and I need mana this turn, I'd rather draw a basic. Or if for example, I wanna play a 6 drop, I have my colors, but I only have 5 lands, I'd much rather draw a basic than a shockland. Even if I can afford to take the 2 points, I'd really rather not. So shocklands aren't strictly better.
But even tho they're not strictly better, they're still very, very good, so good in fact, that most two color decks will run them without thinking about it. We've gotten hints that the new lands are at least on the level of painlands.
Whereas the one you've suggested (play with your hand revealed) has such a strong drawback that I'd really much rather play with painlands. Painlands are better at the beginning since I'd rather take a couple points than reveal my whole hand, and better late in the game since you can use the colorless portion and have basically no drawback at all. Not only that, but as I said, they simply make the game less fun, which is not a trivial consideration. Removing the fun of having information hidden from your opponent in order to play two-color decks is not something WotC is likely to do.
See, here's your problem. Just because it's not strictly better doesn't mean that the land won't be much much better than basics in general. That's why they're rares. There have to be times (ignoring, as I said, interactions with non-basic hate and such) where you'd rather draw the basic land. That's all.
The Telepathy land idea is just not at a rare power-level.
What do you mean it's not the primary method that they chose? They've used that on the shocklands (one of the best dual cycles they've made), Invasion taplands, Coldsnap taplands, Alara shardlands, Tempest enemy painlands and the Lorwyn tribal lands. With the shocklands and tribal lands, we've seen that they consider a optional/conditional CIPT to be good enough to print at rare.
Sure, they've done other things, but it's hardly as if it should be considered off-limits. There's a very good possibility that the M10 duals will involve CIPT.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
*fixed*
I agree with you, but the simple fact that the core set will only contain evergreen keywords means that it will be at least a little simpler than block expansions.
Serra's Grove
Legendary Land - Forest Plains
be? New players would love them because they only have one of that particual card anyhow (it is rare after all) and it never occures to them that thier opponenents might play the same land. Yet it is a significant disadvantage... is it enough? too much? I wish there was a better way to Brothers Yamazaki it...
It means that finding "When ~ comes into play discard a card." isn't any different then finding "~ comes into play tapped unless you discard a card." because the "or comes into play tapped" rider can be added to any other comes into play drawback. Thus there isn't really any point in discussing if the ridder will or will not be applied, its the other part of the drawback that we should be looking for.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Maybe, with a "basic land" clause, it could be playable in the right format. However, it's a bit too good in control, and pretty suck in aggro... won't see print.
If you're proposing a cycle that would, frankly, be kinda crap, then you should consider if perhaps it would be playable with the optional CIPT. Proposing it without the rider and insisting that's a viable design and dismissing discussion of the rider isn't really productive...
That actually interests me. What I would like to see though, is this concept, paired with Flagstones of Trokair. Something like:
Serra's Grove
Legendary Land
T: Add G or W to your mana pool. When ~ is put into a graveyard from play, search your library for a basic forest or plains and put it into play tapped. Then shuffle your library.
Too powerful? The only immediate drawback I see is that having a whole deck full of these would allow for a lot of deck thinning, and it would pretty much ruin any future land destruction cards. However, this would also push the use of more basic lands in decks (which would support the theorized "back to basics" theme that people expect the next block to have), as well as helping Domain and other things.
I don't know. I'm sure there are plenty of unseen problems here that I'm not noticing. It sounds interesting, but I'm no card designer and I only play T2/casual, so I don't exactly know how this would affect older formats.
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
My Traders.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=155934
My Blog
http://bleedingteddy.blogspot.com/
We already know its a Dual land cycle, not a 5-color land, and loosing a card isn't my idea of a reasonable cost for a dual land... (also, the mox is acceleration not just fixing making it even more worthwild to pay the high cost...)
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Why not? People come up with silly and counter-productive ideas about when and why you should use things like reminder text.
The time to use reminder text is when it will help a card be easier to understand and more elegantly worded. A dual land with basic land types benefits from this reminder text because it helps the player always remember exactly what the card does, quickly and easily. It's just like the "card type" reminder text that they print on spells like Tarmogoyf -- it's there so you never have to think any harder than necessary about exactly how the card works.
I basically think worrying about something like this would be a terrible reason not to make use of this design space.
Every indication we have suggests that the aim is now to keep the overall complexity of all sets pretty much comparable to one another.
Not really. Mercadian Masques block had only evergreen keywords, but it wasn't any less complex than, say, Ravnica. There are plenty of mechanics and individual card designs which are complex and don't rely on keywords to be so.
Pretty darn bad. We discussed this in the old thread -- legendary lands like this would be pretty useless for actually mana-fixing your deck because they'd start being dead draws after the first, and in tournament environments everyone would be blowing each other's up.
This is currently my favorite one so far.
I really don't think newer players would prefer a land that doesn't always tap for mana, and isn't a simple concept as the 'go to' for what a dual should be.
As far as a drawback goes, it is rather uneven. We have the following qualifiers on mana from lands: Multicolored spell, creature spell, artifact spell, elemental spell/activation cost...
The last one lets you tap for colorless (so it is never useless), and is the most recent of these to be a rare. Ziggurat is an uncommon, so it can have such a conditional tap. Pillar of the Paruns is a rare in a multicolor block, wasn't played much at all.
The above land could be an uncommon. If you play 4 of them in a deck and see more than one, you are going to be upset. (I somewhat regularly see 3 of certain nonbasics when I play, I am usually not pleased by this, but it doesn't lose me games because of not being able to tap them at all)
If WoTC is going to make a point that new players don't like taking damage from lands, (Or if it turns out to be a front to balance life matters theme in the future) they wouldn't be able to argue effectively that a land that only sometimes can tap for mana is something a new player likes. The drawback is also ehh in that if you have multiples out, anything past the first is likely useless. WoTC wants people to play 4 of these.
I asked a few people at FNM how they thought about the revealing lands and the excommunicate lands.
Almost everyone thought revealing stuff from your hand is not a big deal, and the excommunicate land was fair for what it allowed you to do.
Twitter
Plains Spyland
Land - Plains Island
When Plains Spyland comes into play, look at the top five cards of your library. You may reveal a white or blue card from among them. If you don't, Plains Spyland comes into play tapped.
Index is a single blue mana but allows for rearranging...this doesn't, so is worth less than one mana. However, is it too conditional? It doesn't result in any actual disadvantage, but you're not always going to get it untapped.
Made by Bookworm10
I like it, but I think it should be the top two or three that get revealed instead of the top five. Unless you're flooded or you're playing more than two colors, you should be able to have your land come into play untapped. It's not too conditional to me, but I don't know if being able to see your next few draws is actually too powerful or anything like that.
The thing about this drawback is that you don't have control over it.
You can't rely on it.
For example, my Mayael edh deck has 22 creatures to trigger off of her.
That is between 1/4 and 1/5 of the deck.
I don't hit a creature every once in awhile. It isn't a gimme.
People hit all lands off Hideaway lands sometimes.
For these lands to be playable, the drawback has to be in the player's control, and not left up to chance.
And to bring up the new player thing again, it doesn't promote getting new players to have a drawback that is not in their control, and will randomly mess up their tempo, when it can be a drawback entirely in their control.
Also, looking at the top few cards of your deck is a pretty good thing, so it add doesn't add up nicely enough.
Interesting idea though.
Twitter
Really, deck thinning is what happens when you use a onslaught fetchland to get an alpha dual. You're removing a nonland card from the game that probably matters and thus you have less playable cards because NO ONE LIKES GETTING LANDFLOODED. I would like to see that land printed but I doubt it will.
I would like index lands personally very interesting idea...although they can be almost too good getting to see and set up for what you'll be drawing next.
Currently Playing:
Retired
I understand your point. My opinion is that this kind of land would be somewhat if not pretty reliable if your deck was built in a way that to maximize your chances. In other words, this land would promote two color decks. I don't know if that's the kind of thing the good people at Wizards would want to do, but that's what this land would do. Your logic makes complete sense, though. The probability of having this land come into play untapped is pretty high, but it isn't controllable past proper deckbuilding...So yeah.
I swore to tear Heaven asunder
As flights of fallen angels wished me
Godspeed on the Devil's Thunder.
Thanks Magus of the Sheep for this great border!
2009 ....
Top 8 Regionals
Top 32 GP Chicago
PTQ Top 8's - 2
TopOfDeckLand
Land
When ~card~ comes into play, reveal the top card of your library. If it is blue or black, ~card~ comes into play untapped. If it is a land, you may put that card on the bottom of your deck.
T: Add or to your mana pool.
Or something like
Reveal
Land
When ~card~ comes into play, you may reveal up to two blue, black, or multicolored cards from your hand.
T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or blue card.
T: Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you revealed a multicolored or black card.
I like the idea of second one. Problem is just memory issue involved. Maybe it can be solved by counters? Like the art can have 2 mana symbols, if it can get U, put 1 counter on the U symbol and vise versa?
Chance shouldn't be involved in these lands becoming untapped, as I said.
Also, being able to dump a land isn't much consolation on the first turn when you are staring at a useless tapped land, IMO.
The second land is far too wordy, and the entire card would function just as well if it was "If you don't this comes into play tapped", and it didn't matter what you revealed or not when you are tapping for mana.
Twitter
That could put a lot of text on the card if I'm reading that right.
CARD
Land
When ~CARD~ comes into play reveal up to two blue, black, or multicolored cards. If you revealed a blue card, put a blue counter on ~CARD~. If you revealed a black card, put a black counter on ~CARD~. If you revealed a multicolored card, put a blue counter and a black counter on ~CARD~.
(Put tapping for mana here)
Seems much less elegant.
Maybe a hideaway-type ability.
CARD
Land
When ~CARD~ comes into play, you may remove a blue or black card from your hand from the game face-up. You may play the removed card as if it was in your hand.
T: Add U to your mana pool. Play this ability only if there is a blue card removed from the game.
T: Add Bto your mana pool. Play this ability only if there is a black card removed from the game.
Imprint - When ~ comes into play, you may remove a card in your hand from the game (face down?). You may return the removed card to your hand at any time.
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
: Add X & Y to your mana pool. Play this ability only if there is a card imprinted on ~.
Probably too awesome/complicated.
I think the reason new players don't like painlands is because they have a general aversion to cards with drawbacks. They look at them and think "I don't want my own cards to deal damage to me!" Cards with drawbacks can make a bad first impression, and it takes experience to realize that the pros often outweigh the cons. This may also apply to lands that can conditionally destroy/sacrifice themselves, which gives me slight doubts about the viability of fetchlands to meet this condition, but for the sake of argument I won't rule them out. A card that helps the opponent instead is less likely to trigger this reaction, even though any experienced player is likely to recognize it as the balancing mechanism that it is.
Anyways, this leads me to believe that there are basically four categories of lands that are real possibilities: fetchlands, lands that give information, lands that only produce colored mana under some specific condition, and lands that help the opponent do something.
Obviously they can't be too complex, and can't be some kind of niche card. I don't necessarily think, by the way, that being unable to give both colors on turn 1 would make a land especially unusable in aggro decks, since control/combo decks need their colored mana on turn 1 as well (Duress, Force Spike, Spell Snare, Sleight of Hand, PTE, etc.). CIPT lands have proven to be viable in constructed, even in aggro decks. For example, modern B/W token decks in Standard play Arcane Sanctum. So, it is my opinion that failing to produce both colors turn 1 would not make them niche cards. Of course, most viable designs will make this a moot point.
Now I happen to think that lands that give information to the opponent are a longshot, because short of revealing your entire hand, information alone simply isn't a sufficient drawback. Revealing one or two cards that you'll play immediately thereafter is a non-drawback for aggro decks. Others may and probably will disagree. Of course, this category overlaps some of the others and could combine with conditionality to make viable designs, but I digress. I still consider them a longshot, because the other three categories are much richer veins of design.
So anyways, here are my conclusions:
1) These lands may help the opponent in some small way that is not life-related. (Damage is specifically verboten and lifegain is a non-drawback for control) This probably means some kind of small card-quality effect, like "When this CIP, each opponent may look at the top three cards of his/her library and put them back in any order." but could conceivably be something else small like giving an opponent's creature a +1/+1 counter or something.
2) They could be fetchlands. This absolutely requires a drawback. My opinion is that being only able to search for basic lands is not sufficient. Like I said above, I wonder if new players will think "I don't want to sacrifice my lands!" but nonetheless, fetchlands are a tried-and-true design, and certainly fit the needs of the set in every other way, provided they have some reasonable drawback and lack complexity. I almost don't want to count this as a separate category, since they need some kind of additional drawback that may require looking at the other categories, but could involve paying mana or some other cost instead that would otherwise be unsuitable for dual land. Could sac two lands to fetch two.
3) They could produce colored mana only if you meet the correct conditions. This requires that the condition be something pretty simple that you'll usually be able to do. Nimbus Maze was barely playable, so the condition needs to be easier than that. I happen to think having a card of the other color in your hand is a fine one, but there are plenty of others possible. Using counters for a Gemstone Mine-style land falls into this category, as does CIPT.
4) It could be some combination of the above, or a choice between two or more drawbacks, but pretty much any drawback outside of these categories is a longshot.
5) The drawback will not be anything random or capricious. (eg. ":symtap:: Add or to your mana pool if your life total is an even number. Otherwise, add to your mana pool.") No coin-flipping or anything else that's likely to irritate a large segment of the player base. It will be symmetrical, meaning that whatever conditions and drawbacks apply to one color will apply equally and identically to the other. It will also not be something that would be significantly better or worse against a specific color or common category of decks, but we can be somewhat lenient with that; after all, taking pain is rarely a drawback against control, and those lands were fine.
6) There will either be a cycle of allied color lands only, or else a cycle of ten for each "guild" combination. No weird distributions like the Tainted lands. No differences in the drawbacks like the Future Sight cycle.
As for the "wow" factor, I'm actually hoping for and expecting lands that won't wow me. Why? Because it would take something really outside-the-box to do that, and the box is there for good reasons. To "wow" me with a land would require that they violate our expectations in some way or another; if they don't, there would be no novelty to it, and hence no "wow". I'm hoping for a design that won't particularly surprise anyone, and will just be simple and all-around useful. Here's hoping they'll live up to my plain old boring expectations.
About Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx:
I want to rule out fetchlands because I don't think they are dual lands. A real dual land can give me either color whenever I want. To take that away from the Core set would be to entirely remove duals from the core set.
Maro wrote recently about how dual lands can produce two different colors. I think that supports my position to some extent.
I can't imagine any better type of land out there Wizards. Please prove me wrong.