I think that the safest way to do the mana is probably
T: Add C. T: Add one mana of any color. Spend this mana only to cast a Shrine spell.
I'd also like if the last ability counted shrines somehow. For example:
5,T: Target Shrine gains hexproof until end of turn. This ability costs 1 less for each other Shrine you control.
so my thought with the mana ability, aside of limiting the early game curve out, is that a shrine deck specifically wants to be 5 colors, so limiting this to only color of shrines on board means it’s almost never fixing because the deck will rarely need more than the one mana if that color it already had.
[quote from="user_938036 »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=23"]
It's really not hard in a dedicated deck for this land to be adding mana turn 2-3,
12% possibility is not hard? There is exactly one shrine with a mana cost of 1 which is what is needed for this to produce mana on turn two. Its also considered one of the worse shrines. For turn three, as I said its more likely but it's still uncommon as it requires two other lands and a shrine. Then, you get a mana producing land and bump your shrine count by one.
Not to mention that this has 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype, and that each one of them is far more supported than Urza's or Sagas.
Getting bogged down on the number of types gets way too specific and is fairly pointless. Discuss what they mean and we can have a conversation.
Now since you want to compare them let's compare Urza's Sage with this land.
Both are lands and enchantments.
Urza's Saga produces mana on turn one, gives you something to do with your mana and tutors a highly prominent type. It goes away after turn three. However, by design it doesn't care about mana costs above 3. Even though it goes away it can easily leave behind two creatures of variable size.
Shrine land produces mana reliably on turn four with a reasonable chance on turn three and can act as a counter to removal. By design it cares about multi color which it doesn't help with a focus on mana values of two and three which it can't realistically help with.
Overall Urza's Saga slots into innumerable decks thanks to its tutor. Its power scales with this prominent card type and produces threats. While it's one downside is mitigated by its design of focus on low cost.
While the shrine land slots into one underpowered deck. Gives it a minor boost when its already working acts as a land after your deck is working and can counter a removal.
It definitely looks good but to compare them is almost like comparing ancestral recall with dark ritual. They have visual similarities but their power levels are on completely different scales.
[quote from="user_938036 »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=23"]
It's really not hard in a dedicated deck for this land to be adding mana turn 2-3,
12% possibility is not hard? There is exactly one shrine with a mana cost of 1 which is what is needed for this to produce mana on turn two. Its also considered one of the worse shrines. For turn three, as I said its more likely but it's still uncommon as it requires two other lands and a shrine. Then, you get a mana producing land and bump your shrine count by one.
Not to mention that this has 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype, and that each one of them is far more supported than Urza's or Sagas.
Getting bogged down on the number of types gets way too specific and is fairly pointless. Discuss what they mean and we can have a conversation.
Now since you want to compare them let's compare Urza's Sage with this land.
Both are lands and enchantments.
Urza's Saga produces mana on turn one, gives you something to do with your mana and tutors a highly prominent type. It goes away after turn three. However, by design it doesn't care about mana costs above 3. Even though it goes away it can easily leave behind two creatures of variable size.
Shrine land produces mana reliably on turn four with a reasonable chance on turn three and can act as a counter to removal. By design it cares about multi color which it doesn't help with a focus on mana values of two and three which it can't realistically help with.
Overall Urza's Saga slots into innumerable decks thanks to its tutor. Its power scales with this prominent card type and produces threats. While it's one downside is mitigated by its design of focus on low cost.
While the shrine land slots into one underpowered deck. Gives it a minor boost when its already working acts as a land after your deck is working and can counter a removal.
It definitely looks good but to compare them is almost like comparing ancestral recall with dark ritual. They have visual similarities but their power levels are on completely different scales.
To piggy back off this, there are three shrines at 2 mana and one at one mana, so the odds of getting to pull mana from this by turn three are very low. Further, none of them are the same color, so it won’t help you fix the mana if you play the one-mana sanctum on turn one.
As to the “2 types, a supertype, and a subtype”, the fact that it needs Shrines to even make mana means being an enchantment is a marginal bonus for Enchantress decks because it won’t generate mana for them.
[quote from="user_938036 »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=23"]
It's really not hard in a dedicated deck for this land to be adding mana turn 2-3,
12% possibility is not hard? There is exactly one shrine with a mana cost of 1 which is what is needed for this to produce mana on turn two. Its also considered one of the worse shrines. For turn three, as I said its more likely but it's still uncommon as it requires two other lands and a shrine. Then, you get a mana producing land and bump your shrine count by one.
Not to mention that this has 2 types, a supertype, and a subtype, and that each one of them is far more supported than Urza's or Sagas.
Getting bogged down on the number of types gets way too specific and is fairly pointless. Discuss what they mean and we can have a conversation.
Now since you want to compare them let's compare Urza's Sage with this land.
Both are lands and enchantments.
Urza's Saga produces mana on turn one, gives you something to do with your mana and tutors a highly prominent type. It goes away after turn three. However, by design it doesn't care about mana costs above 3. Even though it goes away it can easily leave behind two creatures of variable size.
Shrine land produces mana reliably on turn four with a reasonable chance on turn three and can act as a counter to removal. By design it cares about multi color which it doesn't help with a focus on mana values of two and three which it can't realistically help with.
Overall Urza's Saga slots into innumerable decks thanks to its tutor. Its power scales with this prominent card type and produces threats. While it's one downside is mitigated by its design of focus on low cost.
While the shrine land slots into one underpowered deck. Gives it a minor boost when its already working acts as a land after your deck is working and can counter a removal.
It definitely looks good but to compare them is almost like comparing ancestral recall with dark ritual. They have visual similarities but their power levels are on completely different scales.
Where are you getting 12%? You keep repeating it but it's actually ~39%, assuming one takes no mulligans.
Also, you're acting like I am saying this is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that is easily the most comparable card.
They are both lands with multiple types, that don't fix your mana, and have a utility that self removes themselves. No other lands have as much going on in the type line, and your card actually has a much, much more relevant type line. Urza's and Saga are pretty much flavor text, where as Legendary and Shrine are both well supported types.
The fact that Urza's Saga goes in more decks is almost irrelevant, since this card is, as said, only broken in one deck. But being broken in one deck is still being broken.
Giving an underpowered archetype a shot in the arm is one thing, but this is liking giving it a rocket launcher and a gallon of steroids.
Where are you getting 12%? You keep repeating it but it's actually ~39%, assuming one takes no mulligans.
That 39 is the odds of having a specific card in your opening hand. However, you need two specific cards for this this to produce mana. The one mana shrine and this land. That's not even considering that you also need a land that can produce white mana so sub 10% is possible.
Also, you're acting like I am saying this is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that is easily the most comparable card.
And I am saying they aren't comparable in the slightest. They are magnitudes apart in power level once you look past the ascetic similarities.
They are both lands with multiple types, that don't fix your mana, and have a utility that self removes themselves. No other lands have as much going on in the type line, and your card actually has a much, much more relevant type line. Urza's and Saga are pretty much flavor text, where as Legendary and Shrine are both well supported types.
This fixation on the number of words in their type line is another ascetic problem. I would argue that Seat of the Synod and friend are more powerful than this land despite having significant less words in the type line. Just get off the number of words and focus on what words actually matter. How and when.
The fact that Urza's Saga goes in more decks is almost irrelevant, since this card is, as said, only broken in one deck. But being broken in one deck is still being broken.
I'll agree here except I don't think its broken.
Giving an underpowered archetype a shot in the arm is one thing, but this is liking giving it a rocket launcher and a gallon of steroids.
I don't believe it's nearly that good. Having played the deck in question it already struggles with its colors so an essentially colorless land is harsh. And it doesn't protect them from all or even the most powerful removal. Also depending on the version you're critiquing it has a shields down moment. I do believe it would make the deck stronger but not nearly strong enough to be dominant in its formats.
[quote from="GrowUpCutterbup »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/825810-shrine-land?comment=29"]
Where are you getting 12%? You keep repeating it but it's actually ~39%, assuming one takes no mulligans.
That 39 is the odds of having a specific card in your opening hand. However, you need two specific cards for this this to produce mana. The one mana shrine and this land. That's not even considering that you also need a land that can produce white mana so sub 10% is possible.
Also, you're acting like I am saying this is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that is easily the most comparable card.
It is very disingenuous to say that the games you don't draw this card are a knock against the card. Your odds of having the enabler are still 39%, the enabler works without this just fine, and if you're playing shrines but can't get W on turn 1 consistently, then your deck building skills should be judged more harshly than any card in your deck.
They are compatible in every way except for specific strategy of play. The type line is not an aesthetic. Every word on there has very relevant mechanical meaning in any deck you would ever put it in.
Yes, 5 of the most broken cards ever printed are more broken than this. Those 5 cards also almost killed Magic. One could argue that almost any broken card is also weaker than Seat of the Synod. It's a meaningless comparison.
Have you played a good version of the deck in question, with this land?
I get that this is, for whatever reason, your baby and you wanna protect it, but there is a reason they don't print cards with type lines like this very often. It's not an aesthetic. It easily breaks the simplest of cards. You're judging the power level of the card based on scenarios that would be losing ones anyways.
Any format worth printing this card into it will either be trash or broken. There really isn't a middle ground with zero mana cards that provide multiple angles of utility, and have 4 words on the type line that all have powerful synergies that can be abused. Not really the mark of a balanced card or good design.
At this point, with your blind spot towards the obvious easiest comparison, I'm going to assume that you've reach a type of logic loop and cannot see past it. Maybe it's the gulf in raw multiformat power level? I dunno, you seem, to me, to have this idea that being slightly less broken than another broken card makes a card not broke.
I love how the opening post mentions that this card is probably broken, and yet almost every single one of your posts since then has been about how this card is definitely not broken. I guess more logical disintegration.
Edit: I will say, this does get me feeling creative about making broken cards lol
Sliver Landlord
Legendary Creature Land - Sliver
Sliver Landlord is all colors.
0/0
-doesn't add mana
-difficult to use turn 1
-type line is irrelevant
-removes itself from the battlefield
-is worse than Urza's Saga and Seat of the Synod
-uses a land drop
I get that this is, for whatever reason, your baby and you wanna protect it,…
You’re not arguing with me there lol . I’m the one who posted the thread but user is just making reasonable points about why it’s not nearly as bad as you think it is and he is quite accurate in his statements.
1) In the actual shrine deck, this card is worse at producing/fixing mana than a wastes, which is a severe cost for a deck that pretty much has to be 4-5 colors.
2) It being an enchantment is irrelevant to a shrine deck and it cannot produce mana for the kind of decks that would want it just for being an enchantment.
3) Being legendary means running 4 in the shrine deck is even worse than it already is for its mana abilities.
4) The artifact lands were broken in standard due to their interaction with Affinity and Arcbound Ravager/Disciple of the Vault, but the bridges from MH2 have barely done anything in modern (and notably don’t generate mana on their first turn either). Similarly, Urza’s Saga sees play as a value engine rather than to trigger things that care about enchantments.
So, the shrine land is bad to play on t1, t2 and, likely t3, it’s a land vulnerable to enchantment removal, it’s bad to draw in multiples (unlike Urza’s Saga) and it provides an incremental bonus to a single, non-competitive, 4-5 color deck who’s mana it cannot effectively fix. I’m not seeing “broken” here.
I get that this is, for whatever reason, your baby and you wanna protect it,…
You’re not arguing with me there lol . I’m the one who posted the thread but user is just making reasonable points about why it’s not nearly as bad as you think it is and he is quite accurate in his statements.
1) In the actual shrine deck, this card is worse at producing/fixing mana than a wastes, which is a severe cost for a deck that pretty much has to be 4-5 colors.
2) It being an enchantment is irrelevant to a shrine deck and it cannot produce mana for the kind of decks that would want it just for being an enchantment.
3) Being legendary means running 4 in the shrine deck is even worse than it already is for its mana abilities.
4) The artifact lands were broken in standard due to their interaction with Affinity and Arcbound Ravager/Disciple of the Vault, but the bridges from MH2 have barely done anything in modern (and notably don’t generate mana on their first turn either). Similarly, Urza’s Saga sees play as a value engine rather than to trigger things that care about enchantments.
So, the shrine land is bad to play on t1, t2 and, likely t3, it’s a land vulnerable to enchantment removal, it’s bad to draw in multiples (unlike Urza’s Saga) and it provides an incremental bonus to a single, non-competitive, 4-5 color deck who’s mana it cannot effectively fix. I’m not seeing “broken” here.
You literally called it broken in the OP. You're just being a contrarian at this point. Again, saying that it is less broken than broken cards, then comparing it to tap lands that have half as many words on the type line is disingenuous.
If you don't think that there is overlap between enchantress and shrine.dec you've probably never played Magic.
The legend rule is barely a drawback here though. It's a land with a sacrifice ability, and the most broken part is a +1 shrine count for the low cost of a land drop. The fact that it barely adds mana is irrelevant here. Hell, playing it into itself can trigger plenty of good things anyways, including an enchantress, a Kami, and a Mystic. It also effectively doubles the number of enchantment lands that enchantress decks can play, which will not care about the text below the type line.
I'm sorry I confused someone else's post for your own. My points all pretty much stand still.
You literally called it broken in the OP. You're just being a contrarian at this point. Again, saying that it is less broken than broken cards, then comparing it to tap lands that have half as many words on the type line is disingenuous.
If you don't think that there is overlap between enchantress and shrine.dec you've probably never played Magic.
The legend rule is barely a drawback here though. It's a land with a sacrifice ability, and the most broken part is a +1 shrine count for the low cost of a land drop. The fact that it barely adds mana is irrelevant here. Hell, playing it into itself can trigger plenty of good things anyways, including an enchantress, a Kami, and a Mystic. It also effectively doubles the number of enchantment lands that enchantress decks can play, which will not care about the text below the type line.
I'm sorry I confused someone else's post for your own. My points all pretty much stand still.
If you reread my original post, yes I speculated that it could have been broken, but my estimation of its limitations has changed based on further analysis.
Shrines is not a popular or competitive archetype. Look at MTG top 8 and there are a grand total of 4 decks listed that play the shrines archetype and 3 are no longer legal because of Standard rotation and it doesn't see play in Modern. Here is the remaining deck still playable in Historic. This deck runs 24 lands, 21 of which produce more than 1 color of mana and two plains so it might be able to play the Sanctum of Tranquil Light in Turn 1. Where does the Shrine Land fit into this mana base? What play pattern would it give the deck that is more efficient than how it currently operates?
Shrines is very much a commander archetype (as there are a huge number on MTGGoldfish/EDHrec/etc) but its a one of and still doesn't mana fix for a 5 color deck so not broken there.
Outside of a Shrines deck, where would this be broken? Where would the extra enchantment matter in a way that overrides not being able to produce mana (or very rarely if you run a couple of Shrines in Enchantress). Your arguments that "Its broken because has a bunch of types" ignores how it actually play in decks that care about those types.
I'll gladly listen to you giving me a scenario/play pattern/deck that shows an instance where is could cause problems, but just saying "two types = bad" isn't an argument, because Treasure Vault sure didn't break standard, Darksteel Citadel is still legal in Modern and Pioneer, and Power Depot only sees play in Hardened Scales which doesn't card about it being an Artifact.
And, funny enough, a search of MTGTop 8 has a total of 38 modern legal enchantress decks and ZERO run Urza's Saga, so i think you are misunderstanding its utility.
You literally called it broken in the OP. You're just being a contrarian at this point. Again, saying that it is less broken than broken cards, then comparing it to tap lands that have half as many words on the type line is disingenuous.
If you don't think that there is overlap between enchantress and shrine.dec you've probably never played Magic.
The legend rule is barely a drawback here though. It's a land with a sacrifice ability, and the most broken part is a +1 shrine count for the low cost of a land drop. The fact that it barely adds mana is irrelevant here. Hell, playing it into itself can trigger plenty of good things anyways, including an enchantress, a Kami, and a Mystic. It also effectively doubles the number of enchantment lands that enchantress decks can play, which will not care about the text below the type line.
I'm sorry I confused someone else's post for your own. My points all pretty much stand still.
If you reread my original post, yes I speculated that it could have been broken, but my estimation of its limitations has changed based on further analysis.
Shrines is not a popular or competitive archetype. Look at MTG top 8 and there are a grand total of 4 decks listed that play the shrines archetype and 3 are no longer legal because of Standard rotation and it doesn't see play in Modern. Here is the remaining deck still playable in Historic. This deck runs 24 lands, 21 of which produce more than 1 color of mana and two plains so it might be able to play the Sanctum of Tranquil Light in Turn 1. Where does the Shrine Land fit into this mana base? What play pattern would it give the deck that is more efficient than how it currently operates?
Shrines is very much a commander archetype (as there are a huge number on MTGGoldfish/EDHrec/etc) but its a one of and still doesn't mana fix for a 5 color deck so not broken there.
Outside of a Shrines deck, where would this be broken? Where would the extra enchantment matter in a way that overrides not being able to produce mana (or very rarely if you run a couple of Shrines in Enchantress). Your arguments that "Its broken because has a bunch of types" ignores how it actually play in decks that care about those types.
I'll gladly listen to you giving me a scenario/play pattern/deck that shows an instance where is could cause problems, but just saying "two types = bad" isn't an argument, because Treasure Vault sure didn't break standard, Darksteel Citadel is still legal in Modern and Pioneer, and Power Depot only sees play in Hardened Scales which doesn't card about it being an Artifact.
And, funny enough, a search of MTGTop 8 has a total of 38 modern legal enchantress decks and ZERO run Urza's Saga, so i think you are misunderstanding its utility.
In 100% of those formats listed, this card is not legal to play. So yes, in formats where this card has never been allowed, the decks it makes broken are not made broken by it.
Yes, cards with weaker utility, entirely different purposes, and half the type line of this card haven't caused problems. That wasn't really in question and feels more like a strawman than anything, considering how poorly they match up to this.
In 100% of those formats listed, this card is not legal to play. So yes, in formats where this card has never been allowed, the decks it makes broken are not made broken by it.
Yes, cards with weaker utility, entirely different purposes, and half the type line of this card haven't caused problems. That wasn't really in question and feels more like a strawman than anything, considering how poorly they match up to this.
You brought up Urza's Saga specifically as an example of why an Enchantment land is a bad idea, but it doesn't see play in the strategies that would care that it is an enchantment. You also brought up Seat of the Synod, but since other artifact lands have not made the same impact there is not a consistent demonstration that "Land + Other Card Type = Broken"
But still, you haven't actually posed a concrete decklist or play pattern that would break this card. All you said was
playing it into itself can trigger plenty of good things anyways, including an enchantress, a Kami, and a Mystic
which is vague so I just gotta guess what you were talking about.
-Enchantress: Again, the modern enchantress decks already aren't running Urza's Saga and this is strictly worse without Shrines, so not broken there. This is primarily because actual enchantress effects care about you casting an enchantment and you don't cast an enchantment land
-Kami?: I did a search for cards with Kami in their name and only 3 interact positively with enchantments. Kami of Transience doesn't trigger off the Shrine land getting played and Geothermal Kami and Kami or Terrible Secrets are limited fodder, so I don't know what you were referencing.
-Mystic?: Only card I could find was Starfield Mystic, but Urza's Saga is already gets into the graveyard more efficiently than the shrine land and according to MTGTop8 the two don't get played together except in some Light-Paws Duel Commander decks
But again, give me concrete explanation of exactly how this would break, say, historic if it were printed into the format. Here's the one Historic deck that actually played the Shrines strategy. What do you switch out for 4 shrine lands and how many*? How does the deck play out when you do this? Can you show me an Enchantress list that would actually play better by playing this instead of its current lands or Urza's Saga.
*since the shrine land is so broken, you clearly need to play 4 to maximize your chance to play it, right?
In 100% of those formats listed, this card is not legal to play. So yes, in formats where this card has never been allowed, the decks it makes broken are not made broken by it.
Yes, cards with weaker utility, entirely different purposes, and half the type line of this card haven't caused problems. That wasn't really in question and feels more like a strawman than anything, considering how poorly they match up to this.
You brought up Urza's Saga specifically as an example of why an Enchantment land is a bad idea, but it doesn't see play in the strategies that would care that it is an enchantment. You also brought up Seat of the Synod, but since other artifact lands have not made the same impact there is not a consistent demonstration that "Land + Other Card Type = Broken"
But still, you haven't actually posed a concrete decklist or play pattern that would break this card. All you said was
playing it into itself can trigger plenty of good things anyways, including an enchantress, a Kami, and a Mystic
which is vague so I just gotta guess what you were talking about.
-Enchantress: Again, the modern enchantress decks already aren't running Urza's Saga and this is strictly worse without Shrines, so not broken there. This is primarily because actual enchantress effects care about you casting an enchantment and you don't cast an enchantment land
-Kami?: I did a search for cards with Kami in their name and only 3 interact positively with enchantments. Kami of Transience doesn't trigger off the Shrine land getting played and Geothermal Kami and Kami or Terrible Secrets are limited fodder, so I don't know what you were referencing.
-Mystic?: Only card I could find was Starfield Mystic, but Urza's Saga is already gets into the graveyard more efficiently than the shrine land and according to MTGTop8 the two don't get played together except in some Light-Paws Duel Commander decks
But again, give me concrete explanation of exactly how this would break, say, historic if it were printed into the format. Here's the one Historic deck that actually played the Shrines strategy. What do you switch out for 4 shrine lands and how many*? How does the deck play out when you do this? Can you show me an Enchantress list that would actually play better by playing this instead of its current lands or Urza's Saga.
*since the shrine land is so broken, you clearly need to play 4 to maximize your chance to play it, right?
Femeref Enchantress triggers off playing this card into itself.
Kami of Transience returns itself from the graveyard off of playing this card into itself.
Starfield Mystic triggers off of playing this into itself.
If you want I could present a deck list later. The one I've been brewing abuses Replenish and constellation/ landfall triggers and having access to 8 enchantment lands. I do not plan on playing any shrines, although that is an option as well. I'll type it out later, I have a show to get to soon.
Also, why is your deck list so intentionally terrible? That's a literal pile. Of you're building decks like that, I can kinda understand why you may not see any given card as broke. You could throw 4x Black Lotus into that and it would still be a pile.
Ah, I misread what you meant with that statement about "playing into itself". So, yes, if you get two on them in hand and spend two land drops you can get a trigger off each of those cards, while also stagnating the development of your mana base. You are right that Urza's Saga would be effective for triggering the graveyard enchantress effects (but it doesn't see play doing that), but I seriously question whether spending two land drops on a land that might not even make mana for you is worth the triggers. And if you are building around Replenish, you are looking at legacy/vintage which means the threshold of "broken" is even higher than the ones I was looking for in Modern/Pioneer. There's no way Shrine land breaks that format, just like your previous examples of Urza's Saga and Seat of the Synod haven't.
As to the decklist above, I didn't write it. As I explained, it was literally the only decklist playing shrine tribal on MTGTop8 that is currently legal and it got 3rd in a tournament. The point being that Shrine Tribal is not even a competitive build to begin with, so a shrine land might push it to a higher-tier deck but won't actually make it broken, just a little more competitive at best.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
so my thought with the mana ability, aside of limiting the early game curve out, is that a shrine deck specifically wants to be 5 colors, so limiting this to only color of shrines on board means it’s almost never fixing because the deck will rarely need more than the one mana if that color it already had.
Getting bogged down on the number of types gets way too specific and is fairly pointless. Discuss what they mean and we can have a conversation.
Now since you want to compare them let's compare Urza's Sage with this land.
Both are lands and enchantments.
Urza's Saga produces mana on turn one, gives you something to do with your mana and tutors a highly prominent type. It goes away after turn three. However, by design it doesn't care about mana costs above 3. Even though it goes away it can easily leave behind two creatures of variable size.
Shrine land produces mana reliably on turn four with a reasonable chance on turn three and can act as a counter to removal. By design it cares about multi color which it doesn't help with a focus on mana values of two and three which it can't realistically help with.
Overall Urza's Saga slots into innumerable decks thanks to its tutor. Its power scales with this prominent card type and produces threats. While it's one downside is mitigated by its design of focus on low cost.
While the shrine land slots into one underpowered deck. Gives it a minor boost when its already working acts as a land after your deck is working and can counter a removal.
It definitely looks good but to compare them is almost like comparing ancestral recall with dark ritual. They have visual similarities but their power levels are on completely different scales.
To piggy back off this, there are three shrines at 2 mana and one at one mana, so the odds of getting to pull mana from this by turn three are very low. Further, none of them are the same color, so it won’t help you fix the mana if you play the one-mana sanctum on turn one.
As to the “2 types, a supertype, and a subtype”, the fact that it needs Shrines to even make mana means being an enchantment is a marginal bonus for Enchantress decks because it won’t generate mana for them.
Where are you getting 12%? You keep repeating it but it's actually ~39%, assuming one takes no mulligans.
Also, you're acting like I am saying this is better than Urza's Saga. I'm saying that is easily the most comparable card.
They are both lands with multiple types, that don't fix your mana, and have a utility that self removes themselves. No other lands have as much going on in the type line, and your card actually has a much, much more relevant type line. Urza's and Saga are pretty much flavor text, where as Legendary and Shrine are both well supported types.
The fact that Urza's Saga goes in more decks is almost irrelevant, since this card is, as said, only broken in one deck. But being broken in one deck is still being broken.
Giving an underpowered archetype a shot in the arm is one thing, but this is liking giving it a rocket launcher and a gallon of steroids.
And I am saying they aren't comparable in the slightest. They are magnitudes apart in power level once you look past the ascetic similarities.
This fixation on the number of words in their type line is another ascetic problem. I would argue that Seat of the Synod and friend are more powerful than this land despite having significant less words in the type line. Just get off the number of words and focus on what words actually matter. How and when.
I'll agree here except I don't think its broken.
I don't believe it's nearly that good. Having played the deck in question it already struggles with its colors so an essentially colorless land is harsh. And it doesn't protect them from all or even the most powerful removal. Also depending on the version you're critiquing it has a shields down moment. I do believe it would make the deck stronger but not nearly strong enough to be dominant in its formats.
It is very disingenuous to say that the games you don't draw this card are a knock against the card. Your odds of having the enabler are still 39%, the enabler works without this just fine, and if you're playing shrines but can't get W on turn 1 consistently, then your deck building skills should be judged more harshly than any card in your deck.
They are compatible in every way except for specific strategy of play. The type line is not an aesthetic. Every word on there has very relevant mechanical meaning in any deck you would ever put it in.
Yes, 5 of the most broken cards ever printed are more broken than this. Those 5 cards also almost killed Magic. One could argue that almost any broken card is also weaker than Seat of the Synod. It's a meaningless comparison.
Have you played a good version of the deck in question, with this land?
I get that this is, for whatever reason, your baby and you wanna protect it, but there is a reason they don't print cards with type lines like this very often. It's not an aesthetic. It easily breaks the simplest of cards. You're judging the power level of the card based on scenarios that would be losing ones anyways.
Any format worth printing this card into it will either be trash or broken. There really isn't a middle ground with zero mana cards that provide multiple angles of utility, and have 4 words on the type line that all have powerful synergies that can be abused. Not really the mark of a balanced card or good design.
At this point, with your blind spot towards the obvious easiest comparison, I'm going to assume that you've reach a type of logic loop and cannot see past it. Maybe it's the gulf in raw multiformat power level? I dunno, you seem, to me, to have this idea that being slightly less broken than another broken card makes a card not broke.
I love how the opening post mentions that this card is probably broken, and yet almost every single one of your posts since then has been about how this card is definitely not broken. I guess more logical disintegration.
Edit: I will say, this does get me feeling creative about making broken cards lol
Sliver Landlord
Legendary Creature Land - Sliver
Sliver Landlord is all colors.
0/0
-doesn't add mana
-difficult to use turn 1
-type line is irrelevant
-removes itself from the battlefield
-is worse than Urza's Saga and Seat of the Synod
-uses a land drop
You’re not arguing with me there lol . I’m the one who posted the thread but user is just making reasonable points about why it’s not nearly as bad as you think it is and he is quite accurate in his statements.
1) In the actual shrine deck, this card is worse at producing/fixing mana than a wastes, which is a severe cost for a deck that pretty much has to be 4-5 colors.
2) It being an enchantment is irrelevant to a shrine deck and it cannot produce mana for the kind of decks that would want it just for being an enchantment.
3) Being legendary means running 4 in the shrine deck is even worse than it already is for its mana abilities.
4) The artifact lands were broken in standard due to their interaction with Affinity and Arcbound Ravager/Disciple of the Vault, but the bridges from MH2 have barely done anything in modern (and notably don’t generate mana on their first turn either). Similarly, Urza’s Saga sees play as a value engine rather than to trigger things that care about enchantments.
So, the shrine land is bad to play on t1, t2 and, likely t3, it’s a land vulnerable to enchantment removal, it’s bad to draw in multiples (unlike Urza’s Saga) and it provides an incremental bonus to a single, non-competitive, 4-5 color deck who’s mana it cannot effectively fix. I’m not seeing “broken” here.
You literally called it broken in the OP. You're just being a contrarian at this point. Again, saying that it is less broken than broken cards, then comparing it to tap lands that have half as many words on the type line is disingenuous.
If you don't think that there is overlap between enchantress and shrine.dec you've probably never played Magic.
The legend rule is barely a drawback here though. It's a land with a sacrifice ability, and the most broken part is a +1 shrine count for the low cost of a land drop. The fact that it barely adds mana is irrelevant here. Hell, playing it into itself can trigger plenty of good things anyways, including an enchantress, a Kami, and a Mystic. It also effectively doubles the number of enchantment lands that enchantress decks can play, which will not care about the text below the type line.
I'm sorry I confused someone else's post for your own. My points all pretty much stand still.
If you reread my original post, yes I speculated that it could have been broken, but my estimation of its limitations has changed based on further analysis.
Shrines is not a popular or competitive archetype. Look at MTG top 8 and there are a grand total of 4 decks listed that play the shrines archetype and 3 are no longer legal because of Standard rotation and it doesn't see play in Modern. Here is the remaining deck still playable in Historic. This deck runs 24 lands, 21 of which produce more than 1 color of mana and two plains so it might be able to play the Sanctum of Tranquil Light in Turn 1. Where does the Shrine Land fit into this mana base? What play pattern would it give the deck that is more efficient than how it currently operates?
Shrines is very much a commander archetype (as there are a huge number on MTGGoldfish/EDHrec/etc) but its a one of and still doesn't mana fix for a 5 color deck so not broken there.
Outside of a Shrines deck, where would this be broken? Where would the extra enchantment matter in a way that overrides not being able to produce mana (or very rarely if you run a couple of Shrines in Enchantress). Your arguments that "Its broken because has a bunch of types" ignores how it actually play in decks that care about those types.
I'll gladly listen to you giving me a scenario/play pattern/deck that shows an instance where is could cause problems, but just saying "two types = bad" isn't an argument, because Treasure Vault sure didn't break standard, Darksteel Citadel is still legal in Modern and Pioneer, and Power Depot only sees play in Hardened Scales which doesn't card about it being an Artifact.
And, funny enough, a search of MTGTop 8 has a total of 38 modern legal enchantress decks and ZERO run Urza's Saga, so i think you are misunderstanding its utility.
In 100% of those formats listed, this card is not legal to play. So yes, in formats where this card has never been allowed, the decks it makes broken are not made broken by it.
Yes, cards with weaker utility, entirely different purposes, and half the type line of this card haven't caused problems. That wasn't really in question and feels more like a strawman than anything, considering how poorly they match up to this.
You brought up Urza's Saga specifically as an example of why an Enchantment land is a bad idea, but it doesn't see play in the strategies that would care that it is an enchantment. You also brought up Seat of the Synod, but since other artifact lands have not made the same impact there is not a consistent demonstration that "Land + Other Card Type = Broken"
But still, you haven't actually posed a concrete decklist or play pattern that would break this card. All you said was
which is vague so I just gotta guess what you were talking about.
-Enchantress: Again, the modern enchantress decks already aren't running Urza's Saga and this is strictly worse without Shrines, so not broken there. This is primarily because actual enchantress effects care about you casting an enchantment and you don't cast an enchantment land
-Kami?: I did a search for cards with Kami in their name and only 3 interact positively with enchantments. Kami of Transience doesn't trigger off the Shrine land getting played and Geothermal Kami and Kami or Terrible Secrets are limited fodder, so I don't know what you were referencing.
-Mystic?: Only card I could find was Starfield Mystic, but Urza's Saga is already gets into the graveyard more efficiently than the shrine land and according to MTGTop8 the two don't get played together except in some Light-Paws Duel Commander decks
But again, give me concrete explanation of exactly how this would break, say, historic if it were printed into the format. Here's the one Historic deck that actually played the Shrines strategy. What do you switch out for 4 shrine lands and how many*? How does the deck play out when you do this? Can you show me an Enchantress list that would actually play better by playing this instead of its current lands or Urza's Saga.
*since the shrine land is so broken, you clearly need to play 4 to maximize your chance to play it, right?
Femeref Enchantress triggers off playing this card into itself.
Kami of Transience returns itself from the graveyard off of playing this card into itself.
Starfield Mystic triggers off of playing this into itself.
If you want I could present a deck list later. The one I've been brewing abuses Replenish and constellation/ landfall triggers and having access to 8 enchantment lands. I do not plan on playing any shrines, although that is an option as well. I'll type it out later, I have a show to get to soon.
Also, why is your deck list so intentionally terrible? That's a literal pile. Of you're building decks like that, I can kinda understand why you may not see any given card as broke. You could throw 4x Black Lotus into that and it would still be a pile.
As to the decklist above, I didn't write it. As I explained, it was literally the only decklist playing shrine tribal on MTGTop8 that is currently legal and it got 3rd in a tournament. The point being that Shrine Tribal is not even a competitive build to begin with, so a shrine land might push it to a higher-tier deck but won't actually make it broken, just a little more competitive at best.