Tap to add G to your mana pool. (maybe ought to have two charge counters for second color)
G/W: add two mana of any color(s) to your mana pool; if used more than once per turn sacrifice it; may not be used more than twice in one turn.
[/quote]
Let me get this stright... you are suggesting a land that A) adds 2 colour mana too your mana pool each turn AND B) has the opption of going over drive and giving you access to 4 mana first turn? My T1.5 and T1 deck love you.........
Tap to add G to your mana pool. (maybe ought to have two charge counters for second color)
G/W: add two mana of any color(s) to your mana pool; if used more than once per turn sacrifice it; may not be used more than twice in one turn.
Let me get this stright... you are suggesting a land that A) adds 2 colour mana too your mana pool each turn AND B) has the opption of going over drive and giving you access to 4 mana first turn? My T1.5 and T1 deck love you.........[/quote]
You bring up an understandable misconception of the idea. The land allows you to filter G/W twice and then it must be sacrificed, so you net no more than what G/W x 2 will give you. The land maybe needs to tap to use only once to be balanced, otherwise you can still tap it for G/W outside of its filter ability.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. -Albert Einstein
Let me get this stright... you are suggesting a land that A) adds 2 colour mana too your mana pool each turn AND B) has the opption of going over drive and giving you access to 4 mana first turn? My T1.5 and T1 deck love you.........
You bring up an understandable misconception of the idea. The land allows you to filter G/W twice and then it must be sacrificed, so you net no more than what G/W x 2 will give you. The land maybe needs to tap to use only once to be balanced, otherwise you can still tap it for G/W outside of its filter ability.[/quote]
You can only have one at a time in play which is a considerable drawback if you have two in hand or opponent kills yours.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. -Albert Einstein
I've seen a lot of people suggesting that the new cycle of land is going to use some sort of counter -- I have to disagree.
With M10, WotC seems to be trying to reinvent a lot of things about the way core sets work. Mostly, I think they're trying to establish a certain number of cards as the "core of the core" that will be reprinted every year -- chief among them would be this dual land cycle. The most important element of that core, would be simplicity; they're supposed to be the 'iconic' cards for new players, so they must be simple.
Counters are certainly far from complicated, but they're also far from the elegant design that I believe WotC is going for with these lands.
This is needlessly complicated ruleswise and almost unjustifiable flavorwise.
In fact, I'm not sure how this is meant to work under the rules at all. I'm sure you wouldn't allow the abilities to be used multiple times per turn, but if you follow the planeswalker rules for these (having the charge counters be loyalty counters and the loyalty be in the bottom right corner) you wouldn't be able to use them except as a sorcery (which is really clunky for a land). Or do you really suggest a whole new set of rules in the CORE SET that works a bit like (but not really) the rules for planeswalkers?
Sure you could just replace the [ ]s with TAPping, but frankly I don't think wizards will be printing these duals with any kind of charge counters at all.
It's no big deal to have charge counters on some of your lands, but the vivids are already too much management in casual (at least if you play 5cc), where you sometimes want to play quick games with limited space. Having the primary mana fixers use counters would be tiresome for most casual players after a while.
Come on! Fractius, you're like 1 000 000th visitor to the site who posted this particular strictly better than a basic suggestion. As for nycjmp, that just isn't a drawback for all except for decks wanting to play wedge colors.
Both suggestions too powerful.
Too complicated for the role these duals should fill, and charge counters are a management pain as I stated above. (Also, it can't be of the type creature without having P/T already, unconditionally.)
I'll defend the card idea once and then throw it to the lions. My argument was my main point; the ideas just something to fit within the parameters of the marketability and playability dimensions. (i.e. something better than the "pain lands" and not as good as the original duals) "Plainswalker - Island" and its ilk would hybridize the plainswalker rule into the land and mean that it can be destroyed in the same way, except malestrom pulse or similar cards because it is still a land, and be used in the same way.
Counters in my experience, if actually used, with dice or stones or similar devices hardly slows games for seasoned players. I can agree to some extent with inexperienced players or Timmy's fumbling with their counters from time to time, but the extent of your logic would be as far as to say that counters should not be allowed any more than they are now. The total net use will likely go up for counter management, but the utility of using them outweighs, especially where most players will grow the skill set to use as fast as without.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. -Albert Einstein
I've seen a lot of people suggesting that the new cycle of land is going to use some sort of counter -- I have to disagree.
With M10, WotC seems to be trying to reinvent a lot of things about the way core sets work. Mostly, I think they're trying to establish a certain number of cards as the "core of the core" that will be reprinted every year -- chief among them would be this dual land cycle. The most important element of that core, would be simplicity; they're supposed to be the 'iconic' cards for new players, so they must be simple.
Counters are certainly far from complicated, but they're also far from the elegant design that I believe WotC is going for with these lands.
I agree that complexity being reduced to simplicity and elegance being favored against something "bulky" is the desired intent for M10 duals. Counters appear to have become such a common part of playing the game that only old players will notice the largest difference in using them, as new players and newer players in all relativity will play as though counters are integral to certain cards. Just like in playing video games, new or newer players adapt to the game better sometimes than old players who started with a joystick with one button. You got to retrain constantly to stay on top of any game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. -Albert Einstein
Outside of the other comments, one stuck in my mind: land ability use only as a sorcery thus being a disadvantage of the card.
I think that the Plainswalker Rules governing plainswalkers would have to have an additional rule. This is needed to get around the draw back. As rules can change in sets, especially in new core sets, the M10 new rule for plainswalkers is that if it is a land any of its abilities can be used as a "mana ability" limited to once per turn. Consequently, the plainswalker lands will have a special ability that applies to them unlike a plainswalker. They are still lands and an attack could destory them, which balances their ultimate ability.
In the example of the Plainswalker-Island, also a dual land:
(Comes into play with one charge counter)
[+1] Add U to your mana pool; add a charge counter to Plainswalker Island
[-1] Add B to your mana pool; subtract a charge counter from Plainswalker Island
[-3] Charge Counters from Plainswalker Island to have it add U/B to your mana pool; sacrifice Plainswalker island if you do so.
If there are no charge counters on Plainswalker Island, then sacrifice it.
The ability combinations could be better than my example--the concept is what I am after.
We have plainswalkers as a significant innovation to the game, why not add their complement? This would be their "turf" so to speak, which if you play a plainswalker of the same "color" ought to add a charge counter or somehow enhance the land.
Unless magic is going to develop another innovation outside of the plainswalker, continuing the development of this new total game influence and "strategy card," board presense, etc. makes sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. -Albert Einstein
I think counters on lands are bad in general. It makes it annoying to tap, or if you use a die, easily get fumbled around and wreck a gamestate. That's probably not good for a core-set, even if it's a more advanced core in M10.
So general rules if I understand the general concensus..
Has to have a tangible drawback of somekind that is consistent across all color combos: no lifeloss/opp lifegain
Make mana first turn preferably both types
Probably not CIPT (considering the trilands)
Land-type or not - is not a drawback
Probably not color specific mechanics drawbacks (i.e. u/b loot, g/r gainlife)
Hmmm, I like the echo lands (during your next upkeep after this comes into play, pay 1 or sac).. probably too wordy or urza's block-esque.
Maybe, Basic Land types - tap: add 1 or R or B to your mana pool, pay 1 during your next upkeep or sac this. (Again probably too wordy, memory issues)
Well I'm stumped. Glad I don't actually design these cycles. Bah just bring back fetchlands and make enemy alligned fetches
I agree that the planeswalker land concept will carry with it some problems as others are quik to point out. The other idea/concept revolves around the Legend rules as applied to land and could be developed for a dual land that is both powerful and yet limited compared to the original dual lands. Counters, admittedly, have their draw backs too.
So, legend land having one in play at a time and thus more vulnerable to elimination by same one in play, slowing down play in some cases, and flavorwise a "toss up," seems to make some sense.
How about Land-Creature as well. They will do what the previous dual lands do, tap for either color mana, and convert to a creature that can be sac'd for one of the two mana as a mana source. The question is the condition on converting to a creature, and how much it can be sac'd for. With all the creature removal out there this would be balanced because it is both a land and creature at the same time.... terminate, et. al.?
Ex. B/U dual-->1U: convert to a 1/1 flying U/B creature with sac to ad either one U or B to your mana pool. Land is a land and creature at all times.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. -Albert Einstein
(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
I don't know if it's been said (as reading through 65 pages is a bit of a chore). But maybe they're the same style as the painlands, just different method.
Anti-Brushland
t: add 1 to your mana pool
T: add G or W to your mana pool, target opponent gains one life.
I don't know if it's been said (as reading through 65 pages is a bit of a chore). But maybe they're the same style as the painlands, just different method.
Anti-Brushland
t: add 1 to your mana pool
T: add G or W to your mana pool, target opponent gains one life.
I don't know if it's been said (as reading through 65 pages is a bit of a chore). But maybe they're the same style as the painlands, just different method.
Anti-Brushland
t: add 1 to your mana pool
T: add G or W to your mana pool, target opponent gains one life.
Been said many, many times, sorry. The consensus is generally that these are much better in control than in aggro, so they're unlikely to be printed as the new staple duals.
Been said many, many times, sorry. The consensus is generally that these are much better in control than in aggro, so they're unlikely to be printed as the new staple duals.
I don't quite agree with this reasoning, because the painlands are much better in aggro than in control and still were printed in several sets.
dude, I really don't think that they're going to mix up the ideas of 'planeswalkers' and 'land' in any way. It just doesn't make any sense flavor wise, and it's needlessly complicated.
Submitted for your approval - Magnetic Lands (called so, because they keep each other untapped, like two magnets with similar charges...sort of i guess...I'd like to take credit for coining that if these are what WotC does...)
Hallowed Thicket
Land - Plains Forest (T: add W/to your mana pool.) At the end of your turn, if you control no other plains or forests, tap Hallowed Thicket
it could also be (to be more of a reasonable drawback):
Stagnant Pool
Land - Island Swamp (T: add U/to your mana pool.) At the end of your turn, if you control no other basic islands or swamps, tap Stagnant Pool
This seems to be a reasonable drawback, as you need at least two lands to negate the drawback (or another "magnetic" land), and it doesn't necessarily fix the woes of a deck going more than two colors.
This also interacts well with Domain, in the current standard and previous constructed formats, as well as fulfilling the "no damage/no life gain/ no reveal" deal. This fulfills colored mana turn one, and mana fixing for TWO color decks. Incidentally, this doesn't turn into a real drawback for control decks (unless they like, reprint opt or something) because in the current standard, most control decks are playing CIPT lands t1 anyway.
This is elegant enough to not require a paragraph and a half of explanation or rules text, and while probably BETTER than shocks or painlands, this is certainly worse than a basic land (at best, they're as good as basics, but I think seasoned vets would debate that hotly).
The other nice thing about these is, in either iteration, they would be chase rares. I don't think anyone sees these and is like "Guh, these suck" (though, the secondary iteration becomes a MUCH bigger drawback for control, which tends to want to run less basic lands, and obviously has a desire to do stuff on their opponents' turns).
thoughts??
apologies, of course if this has been done.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
check out my site
new strategy articles every couple days and a bustling forum too!
and follow us on Twitter @02drop
Sacrifice Draconian Aquifer if it was used to play a Planeswalker or any spell that is both B and U: Put a 1/2 artifact creature token into play.
(If another Draconian Aquifer comes into play sacrifice both just as you would according the the Planeswalker rule)
this seems to be templated in, at best, a peculiar way, and to be... how do i put this nicely?
preposterous to interact with in just about EVERY way....
I mean, unless I'm missing something. why would these put artifact creatures into play? is that supposed to negate the drawback?
this has some pretty severe weirdness to it. also the necessity of like, a CHAPTER of the rule book to explain the new supertype and the way they are "quasi-legendary"
out of curiosity, can you explain your reasoning?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
check out my site
new strategy articles every couple days and a bustling forum too!
and follow us on Twitter @02drop
this seems to be templated in, at best, a peculiar way, and to be... how do i put this nicely?
preposterous to interact with in just about EVERY way....
I mean, unless I'm missing something. why would these put artifact creatures into play? is that supposed to negate the drawback?
this has some pretty severe weirdness to it. also the necessity of like, a CHAPTER of the rule book to explain the new supertype and the way they are "quasi-legendary"
out of curiosity, can you explain your reasoning?
Reasoning: to give MTG Turbo's such as yourself something to get a bunch in their panties about resulting in sudden loss of bowel control as well as to evoke instant ridicule in response to the idea.
We're just trying to have some discussion about how to incorporate the planeswalker concept into lands so as to do something never done before. This is not to say that doing something new is always good in all aspects of the game. There are still a lot of players that do not like planeswalkers for their reasons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking. -Albert Einstein
Now we just suposing now. I heard from my friend who is magic player that the new duel lands will be something like this. He read it on the web somewhere
Shadowland Forest(just a made up name)
Swamp/forest
When ~ comes into play choose either swamp or forest
Add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool
The wording is off bad, but you get the idea
You can search for the lands when called for, there will be a cycle of these and you add the chosen color to your mana pool. if it is swamp you get that color but it is still a swampforest
The important things to think about are what resources do you and your opponent have available on turn 1. Life, cards in hand, and the library.
Life loss is already out as otherwise the is no reason to make new duals.
Life gain for your opponent is out because it adversely affects aggressive decks..
Discarding cards or milling is out because certain decks want to get cards into the graveyard.
Drawing card(s) for your opponent is out because it is too great of a drawback to see play.
Removing cards in your hand or library from the game is a possiblity, but I think this is also too great of a drawback.
Revealing cards in your hand seems like a good mechanic that could be tweaked to work nicely.
Revealing cards from the top of your library might also work, but is not nearly as elegant as using cards in hand.
Any other way of using these resources would I think be ruled out for not being simple enough.
So, I think we are likely to get something like this...
Mountain Swamp v1
Land T: Add R or B to your mana pool.
As ~ comes into play you may reveal a red card and a black card from your hand. If you don't ~ comes into play tapped.
Mountain Swamp v2
Land T: Add R or B to your mana pool.
As ~ comes into play you may reveal two cards from your hand that are any combination of red or black. If you don't ~ comes into play tapped.
V1 is actually very hard to get into play untapped if you are playing a deck with very few cards of one of the colors, so I think it is unlikely to be printed this way. There are lots of variations on this basic concept that could be done, but v2 is very simple to understand for new players, but nuanced enough for pros to appreciate the subtlety of. On turn one its relatively easy to get into play untapped and more difficult later in the game, but it tends to matter somewhat less then. It also promotes 2-3 color decks over 4-5 colors.
What about this?:
Burning Torchland
Artifact Land
[T] Add [R] or [G] to your mana pool.
The drawback is big enough that most constructed players would have an easy answer to it, but small enough that new players probably wouldn't notice it. Affinity isn't a threat in Extended anymore, and the cards that seriously abuse it are gone, so this is completely printable. I searched the thread and didn't see anyone else post this, but I may have missed it. Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Legendary Dual Lands"
Immortal Plains
Legendary Land
Tap to add W to your mana pool
Tap to add G to your mana pool. (maybe ought to have two charge counters for second color)
G/W: add two mana of any color(s) to your mana pool; if used more than once per turn sacrifice it; may not be used more than twice in one turn.
[/quote]
Let me get this stright... you are suggesting a land that A) adds 2 colour mana too your mana pool each turn AND B) has the opption of going over drive and giving you access to 4 mana first turn? My T1.5 and T1 deck love you.........
Let me get this stright... you are suggesting a land that A) adds 2 colour mana too your mana pool each turn AND B) has the opption of going over drive and giving you access to 4 mana first turn? My T1.5 and T1 deck love you.........[/quote]
You bring up an understandable misconception of the idea. The land allows you to filter G/W twice and then it must be sacrificed, so you net no more than what G/W x 2 will give you. The land maybe needs to tap to use only once to be balanced, otherwise you can still tap it for G/W outside of its filter ability.
You bring up an understandable misconception of the idea. The land allows you to filter G/W twice and then it must be sacrificed, so you net no more than what G/W x 2 will give you. The land maybe needs to tap to use only once to be balanced, otherwise you can still tap it for G/W outside of its filter ability.[/quote]
You can only have one at a time in play which is a considerable drawback if you have two in hand or opponent kills yours.
With M10, WotC seems to be trying to reinvent a lot of things about the way core sets work. Mostly, I think they're trying to establish a certain number of cards as the "core of the core" that will be reprinted every year -- chief among them would be this dual land cycle. The most important element of that core, would be simplicity; they're supposed to be the 'iconic' cards for new players, so they must be simple.
Counters are certainly far from complicated, but they're also far from the elegant design that I believe WotC is going for with these lands.
I'll defend the card idea once and then throw it to the lions. My argument was my main point; the ideas just something to fit within the parameters of the marketability and playability dimensions. (i.e. something better than the "pain lands" and not as good as the original duals) "Plainswalker - Island" and its ilk would hybridize the plainswalker rule into the land and mean that it can be destroyed in the same way, except malestrom pulse or similar cards because it is still a land, and be used in the same way.
Counters in my experience, if actually used, with dice or stones or similar devices hardly slows games for seasoned players. I can agree to some extent with inexperienced players or Timmy's fumbling with their counters from time to time, but the extent of your logic would be as far as to say that counters should not be allowed any more than they are now. The total net use will likely go up for counter management, but the utility of using them outweighs, especially where most players will grow the skill set to use as fast as without.
I agree that complexity being reduced to simplicity and elegance being favored against something "bulky" is the desired intent for M10 duals. Counters appear to have become such a common part of playing the game that only old players will notice the largest difference in using them, as new players and newer players in all relativity will play as though counters are integral to certain cards. Just like in playing video games, new or newer players adapt to the game better sometimes than old players who started with a joystick with one button. You got to retrain constantly to stay on top of any game.
I think that the Plainswalker Rules governing plainswalkers would have to have an additional rule. This is needed to get around the draw back. As rules can change in sets, especially in new core sets, the M10 new rule for plainswalkers is that if it is a land any of its abilities can be used as a "mana ability" limited to once per turn. Consequently, the plainswalker lands will have a special ability that applies to them unlike a plainswalker. They are still lands and an attack could destory them, which balances their ultimate ability.
In the example of the Plainswalker-Island, also a dual land:
(Comes into play with one charge counter)
[+1] Add U to your mana pool; add a charge counter to Plainswalker Island
[-1] Add B to your mana pool; subtract a charge counter from Plainswalker Island
[-3] Charge Counters from Plainswalker Island to have it add U/B to your mana pool; sacrifice Plainswalker island if you do so.
If there are no charge counters on Plainswalker Island, then sacrifice it.
The ability combinations could be better than my example--the concept is what I am after.
We have plainswalkers as a significant innovation to the game, why not add their complement? This would be their "turf" so to speak, which if you play a plainswalker of the same "color" ought to add a charge counter or somehow enhance the land.
Unless magic is going to develop another innovation outside of the plainswalker, continuing the development of this new total game influence and "strategy card," board presense, etc. makes sense.
So general rules if I understand the general concensus..
Has to have a tangible drawback of somekind that is consistent across all color combos: no lifeloss/opp lifegain
Make mana first turn preferably both types
Probably not CIPT (considering the trilands)
Land-type or not - is not a drawback
Probably not color specific mechanics drawbacks (i.e. u/b loot, g/r gainlife)
Hmmm, I like the echo lands (during your next upkeep after this comes into play, pay 1 or sac).. probably too wordy or urza's block-esque.
Maybe, Basic Land types - tap: add 1 or R or B to your mana pool, pay 1 during your next upkeep or sac this. (Again probably too wordy, memory issues)
Well I'm stumped. Glad I don't actually design these cycles. Bah just bring back fetchlands and make enemy alligned fetches
So, legend land having one in play at a time and thus more vulnerable to elimination by same one in play, slowing down play in some cases, and flavorwise a "toss up," seems to make some sense.
How about Land-Creature as well. They will do what the previous dual lands do, tap for either color mana, and convert to a creature that can be sac'd for one of the two mana as a mana source. The question is the condition on converting to a creature, and how much it can be sac'd for. With all the creature removal out there this would be balanced because it is both a land and creature at the same time.... terminate, et. al.?
Ex. B/U dual-->1U: convert to a 1/1 flying U/B creature with sac to ad either one U or B to your mana pool. Land is a land and creature at all times.
New Dual
Land
~comes into play tapped unless you return an untapped basic land to your hand
T: Add R or B to your manapool
I'm pretty sure it's been said that the new lands will be able to produce colored mana turn one.
No.
Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
No, No, No, No, No.
Alternatively {UB} or {2B} in [mana] tags are (U/B) or (2/B)
T is :symtap: and T will give T in [mana] tags
Anti-Brushland
t: add 1 to your mana pool
T: add G or W to your mana pool, target opponent gains one life.
It's been done.
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
Been said many, many times, sorry.
ForestPlains
Comes into play tapped unless you reveal a basic forest or plains from your hand.
t: Add G or W
Planesland
Tap, add B to your mana pool.
Tap, add U to your mana pool.
Sacrifice Draconian Aquifer if it was used to play a Planeswalker or any spell that is both B and U: Put a 1/2 artifact creature token into play.
(If another Draconian Aquifer comes into play sacrifice both just as you would according the the Planeswalker rule)
I don't quite agree with this reasoning, because the painlands are much better in aggro than in control and still were printed in several sets.
Hallowed Thicket
Land - Plains Forest
(T: add W/ to your mana pool.)
At the end of your turn, if you control no other plains or forests, tap Hallowed Thicket
it could also be (to be more of a reasonable drawback):
Stagnant Pool
Land - Island Swamp
(T: add U/ to your mana pool.)
At the end of your turn, if you control no other basic islands or swamps, tap Stagnant Pool
This seems to be a reasonable drawback, as you need at least two lands to negate the drawback (or another "magnetic" land), and it doesn't necessarily fix the woes of a deck going more than two colors.
This also interacts well with Domain, in the current standard and previous constructed formats, as well as fulfilling the "no damage/no life gain/ no reveal" deal. This fulfills colored mana turn one, and mana fixing for TWO color decks. Incidentally, this doesn't turn into a real drawback for control decks (unless they like, reprint opt or something) because in the current standard, most control decks are playing CIPT lands t1 anyway.
This is elegant enough to not require a paragraph and a half of explanation or rules text, and while probably BETTER than shocks or painlands, this is certainly worse than a basic land (at best, they're as good as basics, but I think seasoned vets would debate that hotly).
The other nice thing about these is, in either iteration, they would be chase rares. I don't think anyone sees these and is like "Guh, these suck" (though, the secondary iteration becomes a MUCH bigger drawback for control, which tends to want to run less basic lands, and obviously has a desire to do stuff on their opponents' turns).
thoughts??
apologies, of course if this has been done.
new strategy articles every couple days and a bustling forum too!
and follow us on Twitter @02drop
this seems to be templated in, at best, a peculiar way, and to be... how do i put this nicely?
preposterous to interact with in just about EVERY way....
I mean, unless I'm missing something. why would these put artifact creatures into play? is that supposed to negate the drawback?
this has some pretty severe weirdness to it. also the necessity of like, a CHAPTER of the rule book to explain the new supertype and the way they are "quasi-legendary"
out of curiosity, can you explain your reasoning?
new strategy articles every couple days and a bustling forum too!
and follow us on Twitter @02drop
Reasoning: to give MTG Turbo's such as yourself something to get a bunch in their panties about resulting in sudden loss of bowel control as well as to evoke instant ridicule in response to the idea.
We're just trying to have some discussion about how to incorporate the planeswalker concept into lands so as to do something never done before. This is not to say that doing something new is always good in all aspects of the game. There are still a lot of players that do not like planeswalkers for their reasons.
Shadowland Forest(just a made up name)
Swamp/forest
When ~ comes into play choose either swamp or forest
Add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool
The wording is off bad, but you get the idea
You can search for the lands when called for, there will be a cycle of these and you add the chosen color to your mana pool. if it is swamp you get that color but it is still a swampforest
Thoughts?
Life loss is already out as otherwise the is no reason to make new duals.
Life gain for your opponent is out because it adversely affects aggressive decks..
Discarding cards or milling is out because certain decks want to get cards into the graveyard.
Drawing card(s) for your opponent is out because it is too great of a drawback to see play.
Removing cards in your hand or library from the game is a possiblity, but I think this is also too great of a drawback.
Revealing cards in your hand seems like a good mechanic that could be tweaked to work nicely.
Revealing cards from the top of your library might also work, but is not nearly as elegant as using cards in hand.
Any other way of using these resources would I think be ruled out for not being simple enough.
So, I think we are likely to get something like this...
Mountain Swamp v1
Land
T: Add R or B to your mana pool.
As ~ comes into play you may reveal a red card and a black card from your hand. If you don't ~ comes into play tapped.
Mountain Swamp v2
Land
T: Add R or B to your mana pool.
As ~ comes into play you may reveal two cards from your hand that are any combination of red or black. If you don't ~ comes into play tapped.
V1 is actually very hard to get into play untapped if you are playing a deck with very few cards of one of the colors, so I think it is unlikely to be printed this way. There are lots of variations on this basic concept that could be done, but v2 is very simple to understand for new players, but nuanced enough for pros to appreciate the subtlety of. On turn one its relatively easy to get into play untapped and more difficult later in the game, but it tends to matter somewhat less then. It also promotes 2-3 color decks over 4-5 colors.
Burning Torchland
Artifact Land
[T] Add [R] or [G] to your mana pool.
The drawback is big enough that most constructed players would have an easy answer to it, but small enough that new players probably wouldn't notice it. Affinity isn't a threat in Extended anymore, and the cards that seriously abuse it are gone, so this is completely printable. I searched the thread and didn't see anyone else post this, but I may have missed it. Thoughts?