Doesn't the basic land type allow lands to tap for colored mana? This is why cards like Sacred Foundry and Murmuring Bosk have mana abilities that are written in reminder text, rather than rules text, right? If so, then Forest Cave doesn't function well as a design because it would tap for green mana.
It would tap for either, which actually seems pretty elegant to me.
It enters the battlefield untapped and taps to produce green at no penalty, in addition to having an additional upside. That makes it strictly better than basic Forest, which is dangerous territory when it comes to designing lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I run a colorless deck and I honestly don't want, need or see the use of a basic land that taps for colorless mana. There are more than enough non basics that do cool things that it makes it worth playing them over a land that just taps for mana. As far as non basic land hate, I hardly ever see it and there is a ton of artifact ramp that can supplement the loss of all your lands. Playing a colorless deck can be risky but it can have its rewards as well.
Also if they print these lands when they return to zendikar, they probably won't be in large enough supply to help out anyone who wants to build a colorless EDH deck but can't get the lands. You get one basic land per pack so you have a 1/6 chance of getting one. Seeing as how they would probably only be printed for just one set for flavor reasons, this would make these cards a little hard to find and that would drive the price up.
Well, if it happened, there would probably be a 100% colorless precon with a bunch of them, other precons that may have a smattering of them (especially because they would probably have some sort of colorless-matters theme in the spells), and the fat packs would have around 13 of them before opening the boosters if they kept a roughly even ratio of basic lands.
Doesn't the basic land type allow lands to tap for colored mana? This is why cards like Sacred Foundry and Murmuring Bosk have mana abilities that are written in reminder text, rather than rules text, right? If so, then Forest Cave doesn't function well as a design because it would tap for green mana.
It would tap for either, which actually seems pretty elegant to me.
It enters the battlefield untapped and taps to produce green at no penalty, in addition to having an additional upside. That makes it strictly better than basic Forest, which is dangerous territory when it comes to designing lands.
It also wouldn't be playable in a colorless EDH deck, which is the most relevant aspect for a Barry's Land discussion in this subforum.
Doesn't the basic land type allow lands to tap for colored mana? This is why cards like Sacred Foundry and Murmuring Bosk have mana abilities that are written in reminder text, rather than rules text, right? If so, then Forest Cave doesn't function well as a design because it would tap for green mana.
It would tap for either, which actually seems pretty elegant to me.
I wanna know why it took twenty posts in to realize this fact.
Primordial Landscape
Land - Domain
:add 1 to your mana pool.
~ counts as a basic land.
Basic Landcycling 2
Not having the type "basic land" should stop it from mattering with Coalition Victory-style cards, but having its own land subtype and counting as a basic land should make it function as a 6th domain type, right?
Primordial Landscape
Land - Domain
:add 1 to your mana pool.
~ counts as a basic land.
Basic Landcycling 2
Not having the type "basic land" should stop it from mattering with Coalition Victory-style cards, but having its own land subtype and counting as a basic land should make it function as a 6th domain type, right?
Would the "Count as basic land" allow us to play more than 1 in a deck?
Guys, I'm pretty sure that a basic land is a vanilla land that doesn't do anything else, so why do you keep adding cycling to it? As someone else pointed out, they won't make anything that is strictly better than a basic land, and we already have Blasted Landscape.
The only reason I would want a Barry's land is for those who play colorless decks. (Or want to but just cannot afford the land base) I may have a large land base at my disposal but i cannot afford to go drop 1000 bucks on 5 lands, to sort of round off a land base for one deck, that might not even work well to begin with because i cannot search up lands. My 5c deck is doing fine without the ability to search for lands, but that is because I have enough color fixing in it with it being tribal slivers and having both Gemhide and Manaweft Sliver, along with chromatic lantern.
Colorless manabases are FAR more expensive.
You are grossly exaggerating. I can build a colorless land base from scratch for under $20 and not include a single land which ETBT. What you want is an optimized mana base for cheap, which doesn't exist unless you're playing a non-green mono colored deck, and to a lesser extent black.
Guys, I'm pretty sure that a basic land is a vanilla land that doesn't do anything else, so why do you keep adding cycling to it? As someone else pointed out, they won't make anything that is strictly better than a basic land, and we already have Blasted Landscape.
The only reason I would want a Barry's land is for those who play colorless decks. (Or want to but just cannot afford the land base) I may have a large land base at my disposal but i cannot afford to go drop 1000 bucks on 5 lands, to sort of round off a land base for one deck, that might not even work well to begin with because i cannot search up lands. My 5c deck is doing fine without the ability to search for lands, but that is because I have enough color fixing in it with it being tribal slivers and having both Gemhide and Manaweft Sliver, along with chromatic lantern.
Colorless manabases are FAR more expensive.
You are grossly exaggerating. I can build a colorless land base from scratch for under $20 and not include a single land which ETBT. What you want is an optimized mana base for cheap, which doesn't exist unless you're playing a non-green mono colored deck, and to a lesser extent black.
look if half of that can be spent on Mishra's Workshop... i doubt i am exaggerating. I have played a friend of Mine's Kozi deck. I never had a hand that was less than 100 bucks.
There are so many colorless lands, and we keep getting new ones. Tomb of the Spirit Dragon has upside in EDH!
A colorless basic land would only have one ability - tapping for colorless. Stop dreaming up these super lands that are also basic.
If you really want to play Evolving Wilds or Solemn Simulacrum in your colorless deck, I suspect there is a problem. There are a lot of mana rocks that cost less than 4, and these typically have a lot more synergy with a colorless deck than some random land with no abilities.
You can build a deck with a 1000 dollar mana base, or 25$. If you are on a budget, "Barry's Land" is not changing anything.
They really tried to make Barry's Land work for domain, and failed. They aren't going to make one for EDH. At most, they may make a colorless land that with the Relentless Rats ability. But why? Might as well print another 4 or so colorless lands per year.
I really don't understand what you want here. You give reasons, people address them, and yet, you still want them. I would never play Barry's Land in a colorless deck. I wouldn't play it in a 5 color deck either, barring a huge domain theme.
There is so little benefit to making this card. Why would they do it? And, more importantly, why do people still want it?
Would the "Count as basic land" allow us to play more than 1 in a deck?
Yes, I assume it would work the same as the rulings on Relentless Rats/Shadowborn Apostle. The trick is having a land type that is not a normal basic land type, then having rules text that makes it count as a basic land, so there are no actual new basic land types.
Guys, I'm pretty sure that a basic land is a vanilla land that doesn't do anything else, so why do you keep adding cycling to it? As someone else pointed out, they won't make anything that is strictly better than a basic land, and we already have Blasted Landscape.
But having landcycling does not make it better than a basic land, it would still only add colorless. Costing 2 gives it the same pseudo-cost as a panorama grabbing a basic land. The one I proposed is slightly better than a panorama.
Personally, I think a "colorless matters" theme would make for an interesting arena for exploring something new in Magic - a "sixth" color (i.e. lack of color). It could be implemented in a number of ways, but having a basic land that produces colorless could be instrumental in making colorless mana available for such an arena. For example:
Void Bear Creature - Bear (Spend only colorless mana to pay for )
Void Bear has protection from each color. 2/2
Colorless basic lands alone wouldn't be useful... unless you're making a pauper colorless Commander deck. This isn't the kind of thing to be introduced through a Commander product, though; there just wouldn't be enough support for it without a "colorless matters" theme.
Would the "Count as basic land" allow us to play more than 1 in a deck?
Yes, I assume it would work the same as the rulings on Relentless Rats/Shadowborn Apostle. The trick is having a land type that is not a normal basic land type, then having rules text that makes it count as a basic land, so there are no actual new basic land types.
The best solution, as has been repeatedly stated many times, both in this thread and many others, is simply
CARDNAME Basic Land T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Note the lack of sub-type; this is not a "Barry's Land" because it doesn't bump Domain up to 6. It IS a colorless basic, which is what a "colorless matters" theme could use.
Gashnaw, your quote was messed up so hopefully I'm properly responding to you.
Mishra's Workshop is insanely expensive for good reason. Not having one in your deck doesn't suddenly make your mana base unplayable, so you're just reinforcing my stance that what you want is an optimized colorless manabase, not a playable one for cheap. As I and other people have stated, you can get a really good colorless manabase that is also functional (no one else mentioned price but I estimate that it would cost you less than a Tundra). Short of Workshop, that is pretty much optimized. Cut your budget and you can still get the equivalent of running all basics (better actually because they are all utility lands that do other things besides tap for mana). The only thing you lose over basics is the ability to tutor for them with Wayfarer's Bauble, but that is the tradeoff for running utility lands.
Yes, I assume it would work the same as the rulings on Relentless Rats/Shadowborn Apostle. The trick is having a land type that is not a normal basic land type, then having rules text that makes it count as a basic land, so there are no actual new basic land types.
But having landcycling does not make it better than a basic land, it would still only add colorless. Costing 2 gives it the same pseudo-cost as a panorama grabbing a basic land. The one I proposed is slightly better than a panorama.
As I said, Blasted Landscape is already a card. But you still haven't addressed the fact that basic lands are just that, basic. I.e., no other abilities.
Gashnaw, your quote was messed up so hopefully I'm properly responding to you.
Mishra's Workshop is insanely expensive for good reason. Not having one in your deck doesn't suddenly make your mana base unplayable, so you're just reinforcing my stance that what you want is an optimized colorless manabase, not a playable one for cheap. As I and other people have stated, you can get a really good colorless manabase that is also functional (no one else mentioned price but I estimate that it would cost you less than a Tundra). Short of Workshop, that is pretty much optimized. Cut your budget and you can still get the equivalent of running all basics (better actually because they are all utility lands that do other things besides tap for mana). The only thing you lose over basics is the ability to tutor for them with Wayfarer's Bauble, but that is the tradeoff for running utility lands.
Yes, I assume it would work the same as the rulings on Relentless Rats/Shadowborn Apostle. The trick is having a land type that is not a normal basic land type, then having rules text that makes it count as a basic land, so there are no actual new basic land types.
But having landcycling does not make it better than a basic land, it would still only add colorless. Costing 2 gives it the same pseudo-cost as a panorama grabbing a basic land. The one I proposed is slightly better than a panorama.
As I said, Blasted Landscape is already a card. But you still haven't addressed the fact that basic lands are just that, basic. I.e., no other abilities.
Blasted Landscape is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Cycling serves a completely different purpose compared to landcycling. I assumed the idea here was to make a mechanic that supports domain.
As for basic lands having no abilities, does that really need addressing? A basic land that only adds colorless is a waste of card space in any format but EDH. This means that there is no reason for WotC to print such a card unless it supports a set mechanic. Just as panoramas were 90% designed as limited cards, such a land would most likely be designed in the same way since the alternative would be for WotC to simply print a competitive colorless standard deck and inelegantly jam it into a set.
Would the "Count as basic land" allow us to play more than 1 in a deck?
Yes, I assume it would work the same as the rulings on Relentless Rats/Shadowborn Apostle. The trick is having a land type that is not a normal basic land type, then having rules text that makes it count as a basic land, so there are no actual new basic land types.
It should be closer to the changeling rule then (This land counts as a basic land at all times) (Oherwise it works closer to god where they are creatures unless on the board without enough devotion) The "this land counts as a basic land" Would onl take effect while on the board.
Also making it domain would technically add a basic land type since it counts as a basic land its subtype would be considered a basic land type. it should just be Land, that's it.
I think there would need to be a ruing tat a deck may have any number of copies "barry's land" in it.
Blasted Landscape is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Cycling serves a completely different purpose compared to landcycling. I assumed the idea here was to make a mechanic that supports domain.
As for basic lands having no abilities, does that really need addressing? A basic land that only adds colorless is a waste of card space in any format but EDH. This means that there is no reason for WotC to print such a card unless it supports a set mechanic. Just as panoramas were 90% designed as limited cards, such a land would most likely be designed in the same way since the alternative would be for WotC to simply print a competitive colorless standard deck and inelegantly jam it into a set.
I think that "Barry's Land" is a dead idea because of domain. A colorless basic land is much more feasible and desirable. When I built a Kozilek deck I had no problems finding 37 lands to run, and in fact had to cut many of them. However, I would still love to have access to a colorless basic land because then I could include things like Solemn Simulacrum, and have some protection against Ruination and its ilk (which does make seldom appearances in my meta). That is the real appeal for me of having a colorless basic land.
Blasted Landscape is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Cycling serves a completely different purpose compared to landcycling. I assumed the idea here was to make a mechanic that supports domain.
As for basic lands having no abilities, does that really need addressing? A basic land that only adds colorless is a waste of card space in any format but EDH. This means that there is no reason for WotC to print such a card unless it supports a set mechanic. Just as panoramas were 90% designed as limited cards, such a land would most likely be designed in the same way since the alternative would be for WotC to simply print a competitive colorless standard deck and inelegantly jam it into a set.
I think that "Barry's Land" is a dead idea because of domain. A colorless basic land is much more feasible and desirable. When I built a Kozilek deck I had no problems finding 37 lands to run, and in fact had to cut many of them. However, I would still love to have access to a colorless basic land because then I could include things like Solemn Simulacrum, and have some protection against Ruination and its ilk (which does make seldom appearances in my meta). That is the real appeal for me of having a colorless basic land.
In that case it would be far easier to just allow any basics into decks. It's really no different than off-color fetches, barring a few domain card effects and things like Tek.
It already annoys me how the RC doesn't try to accommodate generals like the Myojin.
Primordial Landscape
Land - Domain
:add 1 to your mana pool.
~ counts as a basic land.
Basic Landcycling 2
Not having the type "basic land" should stop it from mattering with Coalition Victory-style cards, but having its own land subtype and counting as a basic land should make it function as a 6th domain type, right?
Coalition Victory only cares about basic land types, not unique basic lands. Unless they change the definition of "basic land type", that means only the subtypes Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest matter for it, regardless of the presence or absence of the Basic supertype.
Of course, Domain is similar. While "Domain" doesn't actually do anything (just like "Metalcraft" or "Imprint"), all cards with Domain care about basic land types. It is not possible to expand existing Domain cards to a 6 maximum without also expanding the requirement for Coalition Victory.
In that case it would be far easier to just allow any basics into decks. It's really no different than off-color fetches, barring a few domain card effects and things like Tek.
It already annoys me how the RC doesn't try to accommodate generals like the Myojin.
Easier how? You would have to alter the rule such that mana symbols count for CI except when they don't, and then alter domain so that it works except when it shouldn't. There has always been a drawback to playing a certain general. Play a 5 color and you get access to every color at the expense of a very difficult mana base to balance/afford. Play a 1 or 2 color and get a more manageable manabase at the expense of fewer colors to draw from. Play one of the few colorless generals and accept the fact that until Wizards prints a colorless basic land you're going to get blown out by Ruination effects. Oh, and don't forget Shatterstorm because that'll wreck you too. But these are all choices you make when you go into deckbuilding.
I believe that there was a thread recently which tried to come up with a rule which would allow the handful of generals which are "unplayable" due to the Command Zone. Papa Funk even took part IIRC. Why are you annoyed that there are less than 10 generals out of the entire pool which are unplayable when there are a far number of really crappy ones and certain color pairings which get bad options. That annoys me far more than not being able to make a crappy Stangg deck.
Whatever. Then I'm thinking of some other crappy general. The point is, there is less than 1% of generals which are deemed unplayable, and some of those, like Phague, have been turned into fun decks to make them playable. And for the ones that don't work, oh well, add them to the pile of hundreds of other cards that suck in this format.
Adamantium Hills
Land
Indestructible
: Add 1 to your mana pool
A deck can have any number of cards named Adamantium hills
I would imagine that mono-brown decks would run a lot of them, but would still run a lot of the utility lands as well, so land destruction would probably not be completely nullified.
For those who are annoyed that they cannot tutor in mono-brown:
Excavation Site
Land
: Add 1 to your mana pool
When you cast a spell that searches your library for a basic land card, you may instead search your library for Excavation Site. This ability functions only while Excavation Site is in your libray. {Could be templated better}
OR
Excavation Site is a basic land as long as it is in your hand or library.{this allows you to tutor for it, shouldn't cause too many rules hiccups since anything that searches for land, be it basic or not, could find it, and it won't have any impact on cards that look at basic lands on the battlefield.}
Easier how? You would have to alter the rule such that mana symbols count for CI except when they don't, and then alter domain so that it works except when it shouldn't. There has always been a drawback to playing a certain general. Play a 5 color and you get access to every color at the expense of a very difficult mana base to balance/afford. Play a 1 or 2 color and get a more manageable manabase at the expense of fewer colors to draw from. Play one of the few colorless generals and accept the fact that until Wizards prints a colorless basic land you're going to get blown out by Ruination effects. Oh, and don't forget Shatterstorm because that'll wreck you too. But these are all choices you make when you go into deckbuilding.
I think that there is actually an easy solution to the problem of colorless Commander decks being unable to put basic lands into their decks: remove the rule that states that lands with basic land types have a color identity.
This thread prompted me to create a new one in the Magic Rulings section (link above) where I ask what the color identity of lands with basic land types are. It turns out that there are seemingly two different rules that prohibit off-color lands with basic land types in decks where you would typically not expect to find them, but there is also a bit of contention regarding which of the two rules is legitimate. By eradicating whichever rule you believe is the legitimate one, you open up the possibility for colorless Commander decks to use basic lands (and some others) by virtue of basic lands having a colorless color identity.
EDIT: To further elaborate on what I've already said, the consequences of removing this rule appear to be insignificant. Yes, it would allow players to put Islands in their Purphoros, God of the Forge deck, but outside of extremely unusual circumstances, this change doesn't impact the way players deckbuild with the primary exception of colorless Commander decks.
I think that there is actually an easy solution to the problem of colorless Commander decks being unable to put basic lands into their decks: remove the rule that states that lands with basic land types have a color identity.
This thread prompted me to create a new one in the Magic Rulings section (link above) where I ask what the color identity of lands with basic land types are. It turns out that there are seemingly two different rules that prohibit off-color lands with basic land types in decks where you would typically not expect to find them, but there is also a bit of contention regarding which of the two rules is legitimate. By eradicating whichever rule you believe is the legitimate one, you open up the possibility for colorless Commander decks to use basic lands (and some others) by virtue of basic lands having a colorless color identity.
EDIT: To further elaborate on what I've already said, the consequences of removing this rule appear to be insignificant. Yes, it would allow players to put Islands in their Purphoros, God of the Forge deck, but outside of extremely unusual circumstances, this change doesn't impact the way players deckbuild with the primary exception of colorless Commander decks.
Insignificant to you, but not without its own set of issues. As I stated before, domain gets a whole lot better if I can include every single shock and dual land in my deck. I'm sure there are other scenarios as well, but the issue with what you propose is the usual issue with any proposed rules change - you make one small adjustment to the game in order to accomplish a niche thing, but the change opens up the door for new unintended interactions which do not benefit the game.
Insignificant to you, but not without its own set of issues. As I stated before, domain gets a whole lot better if I can include every single shock and dual land in my deck. I'm sure there are other scenarios as well, but the issue with what you propose is the usual issue with any proposed rules change - you make one small adjustment to the game in order to accomplish a niche thing, but the change opens up the door for new unintended interactions which do not benefit the game.
What issues? That domain is improved outside of pentacolored decks? I'd hardly consider that an issue. This rule change is really straightforward and the consequences apparent. The only baggage that seemingly comes with it (and ultimately why it won't be considered) is that it isn't intuitive that basic lands have a colorless color identity and thus creates a lot of confusion regarding possible card legality in decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It enters the battlefield untapped and taps to produce green at no penalty, in addition to having an additional upside. That makes it strictly better than basic Forest, which is dangerous territory when it comes to designing lands.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
It also wouldn't be playable in a colorless EDH deck, which is the most relevant aspect for a Barry's Land discussion in this subforum.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This does not even work for your purpose as adding a basic land type gives it the inherent "T: Add [color] to your mana pool" rules text.
I wanna know why it took twenty posts in to realize this fact.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
Not having the type "basic land" should stop it from mattering with Coalition Victory-style cards, but having its own land subtype and counting as a basic land should make it function as a 6th domain type, right?
I'm a sucker for bad jokes I guess.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Would the "Count as basic land" allow us to play more than 1 in a deck?
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
You are grossly exaggerating. I can build a colorless land base from scratch for under $20 and not include a single land which ETBT. What you want is an optimized mana base for cheap, which doesn't exist unless you're playing a non-green mono colored deck, and to a lesser extent black.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
A colorless basic land would only have one ability - tapping for colorless. Stop dreaming up these super lands that are also basic.
If you really want to play Evolving Wilds or Solemn Simulacrum in your colorless deck, I suspect there is a problem. There are a lot of mana rocks that cost less than 4, and these typically have a lot more synergy with a colorless deck than some random land with no abilities.
You can build a deck with a 1000 dollar mana base, or 25$. If you are on a budget, "Barry's Land" is not changing anything.
They really tried to make Barry's Land work for domain, and failed. They aren't going to make one for EDH. At most, they may make a colorless land that with the Relentless Rats ability. But why? Might as well print another 4 or so colorless lands per year.
I really don't understand what you want here. You give reasons, people address them, and yet, you still want them. I would never play Barry's Land in a colorless deck. I wouldn't play it in a 5 color deck either, barring a huge domain theme.
There is so little benefit to making this card. Why would they do it? And, more importantly, why do people still want it?
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Yes, I assume it would work the same as the rulings on Relentless Rats/Shadowborn Apostle. The trick is having a land type that is not a normal basic land type, then having rules text that makes it count as a basic land, so there are no actual new basic land types.
But having landcycling does not make it better than a basic land, it would still only add colorless. Costing 2 gives it the same pseudo-cost as a panorama grabbing a basic land. The one I proposed is slightly better than a panorama.
Void Bear
Creature - Bear
(Spend only colorless mana to pay for )
Void Bear has protection from each color.
2/2
Colorless basic lands alone wouldn't be useful... unless you're making a pauper colorless Commander deck. This isn't the kind of thing to be introduced through a Commander product, though; there just wouldn't be enough support for it without a "colorless matters" theme.
See:
Note the lack of sub-type; this is not a "Barry's Land" because it doesn't bump Domain up to 6. It IS a colorless basic, which is what a "colorless matters" theme could use.
So their monobrown deck doesn't get blown out by Ruination, Wave of Vitriol or Back to Basics, I imagine.
Mishra's Workshop is insanely expensive for good reason. Not having one in your deck doesn't suddenly make your mana base unplayable, so you're just reinforcing my stance that what you want is an optimized colorless manabase, not a playable one for cheap. As I and other people have stated, you can get a really good colorless manabase that is also functional (no one else mentioned price but I estimate that it would cost you less than a Tundra). Short of Workshop, that is pretty much optimized. Cut your budget and you can still get the equivalent of running all basics (better actually because they are all utility lands that do other things besides tap for mana). The only thing you lose over basics is the ability to tutor for them with Wayfarer's Bauble, but that is the tradeoff for running utility lands.
As I said, Blasted Landscape is already a card. But you still haven't addressed the fact that basic lands are just that, basic. I.e., no other abilities.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Blasted Landscape is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Cycling serves a completely different purpose compared to landcycling. I assumed the idea here was to make a mechanic that supports domain.
As for basic lands having no abilities, does that really need addressing? A basic land that only adds colorless is a waste of card space in any format but EDH. This means that there is no reason for WotC to print such a card unless it supports a set mechanic. Just as panoramas were 90% designed as limited cards, such a land would most likely be designed in the same way since the alternative would be for WotC to simply print a competitive colorless standard deck and inelegantly jam it into a set.
It should be closer to the changeling rule then (This land counts as a basic land at all times) (Oherwise it works closer to god where they are creatures unless on the board without enough devotion) The "this land counts as a basic land" Would onl take effect while on the board.
Also making it domain would technically add a basic land type since it counts as a basic land its subtype would be considered a basic land type. it should just be Land, that's it.
I think there would need to be a ruing tat a deck may have any number of copies "barry's land" in it.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I think that "Barry's Land" is a dead idea because of domain. A colorless basic land is much more feasible and desirable. When I built a Kozilek deck I had no problems finding 37 lands to run, and in fact had to cut many of them. However, I would still love to have access to a colorless basic land because then I could include things like Solemn Simulacrum, and have some protection against Ruination and its ilk (which does make seldom appearances in my meta). That is the real appeal for me of having a colorless basic land.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
In that case it would be far easier to just allow any basics into decks. It's really no different than off-color fetches, barring a few domain card effects and things like Tek.
It already annoys me how the RC doesn't try to accommodate generals like the Myojin.
Coalition Victory only cares about basic land types, not unique basic lands. Unless they change the definition of "basic land type", that means only the subtypes Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest matter for it, regardless of the presence or absence of the Basic supertype.
Of course, Domain is similar. While "Domain" doesn't actually do anything (just like "Metalcraft" or "Imprint"), all cards with Domain care about basic land types. It is not possible to expand existing Domain cards to a 6 maximum without also expanding the requirement for Coalition Victory.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Easier how? You would have to alter the rule such that mana symbols count for CI except when they don't, and then alter domain so that it works except when it shouldn't. There has always been a drawback to playing a certain general. Play a 5 color and you get access to every color at the expense of a very difficult mana base to balance/afford. Play a 1 or 2 color and get a more manageable manabase at the expense of fewer colors to draw from. Play one of the few colorless generals and accept the fact that until Wizards prints a colorless basic land you're going to get blown out by Ruination effects. Oh, and don't forget Shatterstorm because that'll wreck you too. But these are all choices you make when you go into deckbuilding.
I believe that there was a thread recently which tried to come up with a rule which would allow the handful of generals which are "unplayable" due to the Command Zone. Papa Funk even took part IIRC. Why are you annoyed that there are less than 10 generals out of the entire pool which are unplayable when there are a far number of really crappy ones and certain color pairings which get bad options. That annoys me far more than not being able to make a crappy Stangg deck.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Whatever. Then I'm thinking of some other crappy general. The point is, there is less than 1% of generals which are deemed unplayable, and some of those, like Phague, have been turned into fun decks to make them playable. And for the ones that don't work, oh well, add them to the pile of hundreds of other cards that suck in this format.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Adamantium Hills
Land
Indestructible
: Add 1 to your mana pool
A deck can have any number of cards named Adamantium hills
I would imagine that mono-brown decks would run a lot of them, but would still run a lot of the utility lands as well, so land destruction would probably not be completely nullified.
For those who are annoyed that they cannot tutor in mono-brown:
Excavation Site
Land
: Add 1 to your mana pool
When you cast a spell that searches your library for a basic land card, you may instead search your library for Excavation Site. This ability functions only while Excavation Site is in your libray. {Could be templated better}
OR
Excavation Site is a basic land as long as it is in your hand or library.{this allows you to tutor for it, shouldn't cause too many rules hiccups since anything that searches for land, be it basic or not, could find it, and it won't have any impact on cards that look at basic lands on the battlefield.}
I think that there is actually an easy solution to the problem of colorless Commander decks being unable to put basic lands into their decks: remove the rule that states that lands with basic land types have a color identity.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/609473-color-identity-and-basic-land-types
This thread prompted me to create a new one in the Magic Rulings section (link above) where I ask what the color identity of lands with basic land types are. It turns out that there are seemingly two different rules that prohibit off-color lands with basic land types in decks where you would typically not expect to find them, but there is also a bit of contention regarding which of the two rules is legitimate. By eradicating whichever rule you believe is the legitimate one, you open up the possibility for colorless Commander decks to use basic lands (and some others) by virtue of basic lands having a colorless color identity.
EDIT: To further elaborate on what I've already said, the consequences of removing this rule appear to be insignificant. Yes, it would allow players to put Islands in their Purphoros, God of the Forge deck, but outside of extremely unusual circumstances, this change doesn't impact the way players deckbuild with the primary exception of colorless Commander decks.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Insignificant to you, but not without its own set of issues. As I stated before, domain gets a whole lot better if I can include every single shock and dual land in my deck. I'm sure there are other scenarios as well, but the issue with what you propose is the usual issue with any proposed rules change - you make one small adjustment to the game in order to accomplish a niche thing, but the change opens up the door for new unintended interactions which do not benefit the game.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
What issues? That domain is improved outside of pentacolored decks? I'd hardly consider that an issue. This rule change is really straightforward and the consequences apparent. The only baggage that seemingly comes with it (and ultimately why it won't be considered) is that it isn't intuitive that basic lands have a colorless color identity and thus creates a lot of confusion regarding possible card legality in decks.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!