What Lands should've been in MTG

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

Okay, some abilities you could give out willy nilly to basic lands without massively increasing complexity:

Shroud - land cannot be the target of spells or abilities. So it's immune to both Stone Rain and Wild Growth, but can still be destroyed by things like flashfires and armageddon, and still be boosted by things like mana flare.

"Hidden" - controller gets to decide if this land counts as a forest or not for any effect which cares. So it can be immune to Acid Rain,, but you can then feed it to your Orcish Lumberjack.

"Moxlike" - playing this land does not count against your normal one land per turn limit. You may only play one Moxlike land per turn.

"Dualtap" - this land untaps during each player's untap step.


Those may or may not be balanced, they may or may not be worthwhile, but they all preserve the simplicity of " this is untapped, you can tap it for a point of mana", which MtG exceeded long ago with Mishras Factories and crazyfail like

Image
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Having thematic "cycles" helps with memorizing different card types. For super simple land effects with 1 simple extra feature in addition to "tap for 1 mana"...

Sac lands- can also be sacrificed to generate an extra mana. Either as "tap: sacrifice and generate 2 mana" so you can't sacrifice it when it's already been tapped for one, or as "sacrifice to generate 1 mana" which lets you sacrifice it for extra mana after it's already been tapped.

Creature lands- Something like Dryad Harbor, it's also a creature though since we're balancing lands to something better than "Basic Land", a CMC0 creature-land can be better than just 1/1, something like...
Green: "savage garden" 1/2
Red: "rolling stones" 1/1 haste
White: "stone temple" 0/3 defender
Blue: "curved air" 1/1 flying
Black: "gravestone" 1/1 1B: Regenerate

"Seal" lands- Like the "seal of..." effects, except it's a land getting sac'd.
Green: "musclefruit grove" sac to give creature +3/+3
Green: "wandering kudzu" sac to destroy target artifact
Red: "lightning spire" sac to deal 3 damage to target creature/player
Red: "wasteland" sac to destroy target land
White: "hallowed ground" sac to destroy target enchantment
White: "pilgrim's road" sac to gain 6 life/prevent 6 damage
Blue: "whirlpool" sac to return target creature to owner's hand
Blue: "aether stream"" sac to counter spell unless 1 is paid
Black: "mosquito swamp" sac to put -2/-2 token on target creature
Black: "crumbling graveyard" sac to put creature in graveyard to your hand

*...though maybe a mana cost should be added otherwise these lands can be splashed into any deck for utility.

A "comes into play tapped" version of the above would have stronger effects
Last edited by OgreBattle on Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
GâtFromKI
Knight-Baron
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:14 am

Post by GâtFromKI »

Ravengm wrote:Tons of card games nowadays have the concept of an "Identity" that you choose before the game that impacts gameplay: IDs in Netrunner, Agendas in Game of Thrones, Phoenixborn in Ashes, and so on. I'm kind of surprised that Magic hasn't tried to re-jump on that bandwagon since Vanguard happened.
It did, with the EDH/Commander format. (huh, actually I don't know when Vanguard happened, and when EDH was created. But EDH is still played, and people playing EDH are still buying the new expansion sets to improve their decks)

FrankTrollman wrote:Lands that don't produce mana at all aren't really lands, they are spells with weird costs. A deck needs 21-26 lands in it that actually make mana, and stuff like Deserts and Ice Flows don't count.
I guess that lands like the eye of Ugin, which doesn't produce mana but reduce the cost of some spells, also count as land. Maybe there is some design space here also.
Last edited by GâtFromKI on Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

The problem with straight up basic lands+ is that it breaks "search your library for a {land type}" effects. But wizards is in no way committed to balancing against basic lands hence the increasingly weaksauce "drawbacks for duals. What the are concerned about is complexity creep and having a lot of lands running around can that do more things than produce mana makes things way more complicated for new players.

Also adding functionality to lands is a huge upgrade to some types of decks put not to others. The original man-duals let decks like jund and caw-blade be even more busted because the could safely run ~26 lands.
Last edited by Mistborn on Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Ravengm wrote:The biggest problem that you run into with lands that have basic minor effects is board complexity.
Then make them "virtual-basic" with ETB triggers or something.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

In Alpha/Beta/Revised, were there any lands other than basic lands and the original dual lands?
Zaranthan
Knight-Baron
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 3:08 pm

Post by Zaranthan »

Gatherer says no.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Searc ... Land]&set=|[%22Limited%20Edition%20Alpha%22]|[%22Limited%20Edition%20Beta%22]|[%22Revised%20Edition%22]
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Lord Mistborn wrote:The problem with straight up basic lands+ is that it breaks "search your library for a {land type}" effects. But wizards is in no way committed to balancing against basic lands hence the increasingly weaksauce "drawbacks for duals. What the are concerned about is complexity creep and having a lot of lands running around can that do more things than produce mana makes things way more complicated for new players.

Also adding functionality to lands is a huge upgrade to some types of decks put not to others. The original man-duals let decks like jund and caw-blade be even more busted because the could safely run ~26 lands.
I don't think any of these arguments hold the slightest bit of water. For starters, the current dominant decks have like 10+ different kinds of land in them. And almost all of those have blocks of text on them. Hell, there are decks that people play unironically that have fifteen different kinds of land. Further, with a very few exceptions there is basically nothing about the art or names of the most used lands that give away what the fuck they do. The "Bloodfell Caves" and the "Bloodstained Mire" are slightly but importantly different from one another and it is the rare player who can tell you which is which without looking it up or reading the card.

The complexity chicken has been well and truly fucked. Indeed, with the balance point where it is, almost all land that you'd consider playing has two things. A thing that makes it better than a Forest so you'd actually consider fucking using it, and a thing that makes it worse than a Forest so that it isn't considered "broken." If the balance point was instead that you had Forests with minor abilities, the amount of text on lands would be less than it is right now.

Now as for land searching being busted, well the existence of the "Lands" deck in Legacy shows that it already is. Or rather, that it inevitably becomes busted if you print enough weird broken lands. Lands is based around stupid interactions between weird ass broken lands from different sets. The fact that Thespian's Stage can copy the end of Dark Depths' countdown but cannot copy the beginning of it is horse shit. And yet, that's the deck and it wins Legacy tournaments.

-Username17
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Post by Eikre »

I object to dual lands being the point of balance in this new scheme. In Modern, you have to pay five hundred dollars and lightning bolt yourself in the face to use the principal fetch+shock mana base, but people take that deal every single fucking time and run no fewer than three colors under almost any circumstances. Consequentially, color identity and exclusivity in Modern is a fucking joke. The leading deck archetype is called Jund, which just means that you have Red, Green, and Black. There is no other identification for the character of this deck. The strategy is to pay sixty dollars a card for all the independently excellent shit out of a majority of the color pie and shove it up your opponent's ass. Other archetypes are Junk, so-called because it's literally just a pile of good stuff, and Zoo, which is ditto for but for creatures. The only decks that aren't pushing top 8 with really ostensible tricolor identities are certain combos that gain literally nothing from branching out, Affinity, and Urzatron, the latter two of which are happy to swear off color almost entirely and enjoy their own exclusive relationships with mana acquisition. Seriously, people put up deck lists with a 9:1 ratio of dual-color to single-color lands and call it Red Deck Wins with a straight face.

That said. I am pretty much completely on board with the MTG team rescinding their mandate to never again print a land which is just unequivocally better than a basic. I share the reservation that has already been expressed, that you would still need to have a core set of five basic lands which are always called the same thing and always do the same thing and appear in every set. It pays to have a firmament like that, not only to cut down on the noise that a novice is going to see in their starter deck, but also so that you can continue to guarantee basic lands in draft and not have your design barometer for those draft formats getting swung so hard all the time by changing the expectations on the most elementary cards.

My suggestion? Whenever you play a basic land (which, as a reminder, is its own special once-per-turn, hard-coded thing, the rules of which we could just append this stipulation to), you draw a card. The killjoy in the basic land is that it's just this obligate commodity that offers very little interest, and this would go a long way to solve that. People would start packing more lands, but that's not really not at all a bad thing if you're oriented towards making the game play better instead of singlemindedly trying to open up tweakability of a decklist. It means fewer opening hands with zero mana, a far more moderate downside to a hand with nothing but mana, and the curve itself flattens out, which means that later turns are more accessible design space. And, of course, people will always switch some of that shit out if you give them enough of an upshot to trade for the cantrip.

I've been goldfishing with the mechanic for a few days and I really like how it turns out. It might go well with a higher minimum deck size (I like 70, or 77; seven is a very likeable number) or a contraction on the maximum number of duplicate cards per deck (which is to say, you'd go down to three.) With the popularity of EDH, it's my inclination that neither of these changes would actually be so unpopular.
This signature is here just so you don't otherwise mistake the last sentence of my post for one.
User avatar
Ravengm
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ravengm »

Ancient History wrote:No. The whole point is that nonbasic lands are complicated BECAUSE the basic lands have no design space left in them. A Forest is a Forest that taps for G. That's it. You can't make anything better than that, because it would automatically invalidate the Forest. You can't make anything worse than that, because it's the bare minimum of what a land is. (I mean, I guess you could have something like a Forest that adds G to your mana pool when you throw it down but then is just a land you can't tap, but what the fuck is the point of that?) So the whole reason we have pain lands and tapped lands and search lands and all that happy horseshit is because there's no design space. You want a little room to play with things, and if all the lands of the same type have the same fucking ability, you're back where you started.
I was speaking hypothetically about if-lands-came-with-other-effects Magic theorycrafting, sorry if that wasn't explicit. I didn't mean the game should change to have rider effects on lands in its current form, more what they could have done if things were different at the game's beginning.
GâtFromKI wrote:EDH
I guess EDH does fit the description, but I was thinking more along the lines of Momir Basic, in which your deck is 60 basic lands and you have the ability on your vanguard card of "X, discard a card: put a creature token that's a copy of a random creature with converted mana cost X onto the battlefield". There are definitely casual formats like that or EDH that exist, but nothing in the "vanilla" version of MTG.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
User avatar
Ancient History
Serious Badass
Posts: 12708
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

Post by Ancient History »

Okay. Sorry if I jumped you a bit there. Frank and I were talking about it and I think, ironically, Land Tokens (i.e. it's a Forest but you can't tap it for mana but it still counts as a Forest and a land for all other purposes) might be something people would actually play with Landfall decks.
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Post by Eikre »

There are lots of conceptual mechanics that don't do anything, which people would nonetheless play in a deck based around a different, complementary mechanic.

Image
When they printed this card, they actually didn't even know what kind of a deck that would be.

Presently, however, the design consensus is that those so-called "parasitic mechanics" do not represent an elegant design, and that it is important to exert basic efforts to make cards at least nominally self-sufficient.

I don't know if I would care to always respect that mandate if I were a designer, but I do see the logic in it, and a lot of the player-base is onboard.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

One with Nothing wasn't intended to be "good in the right deck", it was intended to be just plain bad.
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Post by Eikre »

Nah, there are decks based on Balance and Barren Glory that turn disadvantages like that into value, and others like Hermit Druid that play out of the graveyard and desire ways to get rid of a hand. Plus whole set-focused mechanics like Madness that actively participate in the discard mechanic. They knew they were publishing a piece of something, but they've also made it explicitly clear that they didn't particularly care to personally conceive of where it was going to fit, they just wanted to put weird shit in the eternal card pool.
This signature is here just so you don't otherwise mistake the last sentence of my post for one.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Eikre wrote:Nah, there are decks based on Balance and Barren Glory that turn disadvantages like that into value, and others like Hermit Druid that play out of the graveyard and desire ways to get rid of a hand. Plus whole set-focused mechanics like Madness that actively participate in the discard mechanic. They knew they were publishing a piece of something, but they've also made it explicitly clear that they didn't particularly care to personally conceive of where it was going to fit, they just wanted to put weird shit in the eternal card pool.
Mark Rosewater wrote:Did R&D make One With Nothing bad on purpose? Yes. Hopefully, that's pretty apparent. The card was not a failed attempt by R&D to try and make a useful card. When we designed the card, it was our intention to make a bad card. No, not a bad card. I'm going to dub it a “bad bad card”. What is a bad bad card? A card designed such that it is apparent to everyone that the card is grossly underpowered. (For more on why we print bad cards, feel free to check out my now classic column “When Cards Go Bad”.)
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Post by Eikre »

Mark Rosewater wrote:I do not believe no one will play the card. In fact, the card was designed to please a certain segment of the Magic community. I dub this style of player the uber-Johnny.
Maro always wants to go back to his fucking psychographic, but I've read the same intention represented in a far less patronizing way by another guy from the dev team whose name I forget because it's not Mark Rosewater. The short of it is that the card was absolutely meant to drop into some kind of Lion's Eye Diamond deck.
This signature is here just so you don't otherwise mistake the last sentence of my post for one.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Eikre wrote:
Mark Rosewater wrote:I do not believe no one will play the card. In fact, the card was designed to please a certain segment of the Magic community. I dub this style of player the uber-Johnny.
Maro always wants to go back to his fucking psychographic, but I've read the same intention represented in a far less patronizing way by another guy from the dev team whose name I forget because it's not Mark Rosewater. The short of it is that the card was absolutely meant to drop into some kind of Lion's Eye Diamond deck.
Mark Rosewater wrote:One with Nothing was famous for stirring up a big segment of the audience who was offended that we printed a card that was so obviously worthless. What most of them failed to understand was that it was the majority's rejection of this card that made it so much fun for the Johnnies who used it. Anyone can win with a good card. These Johnnies enjoy winning with bad ones.
In other words, the card appeals to "uber-Johnnies" precisely because it is bad.
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Post by Eikre »

Jesus christ, look, how can a card ever be used to help win a game unless there is some edge circumstance under which it is not bad? Maro's "Johnny" archetype isn't a guy who just arbitrarily ties a hand behind his back and tries to win using a completely useless card, and if he was there would be zero reason to ever print a card for the guy because he could just handicap his deck with as many off-color Homelands jerks as he wanted. Johnny's intention is to genuinely employ the card of his fascination, not just to punch himself in the dick with it. The thing that makes this card a candidate for the "uber-johnny" is that it is so obviously a terrible thing to do to yourself unless you've got a plan. This is in contrast to a card like Wild Richochet, which, though not held in particularly high esteem by a reasonable player, is at least a nominally beneficial effect.
This signature is here just so you don't otherwise mistake the last sentence of my post for one.
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

Hey I'm pretty sure some people actually put One with Nothing into actual decks (well actual sideboards) it was tech verses Owling Mine (it still wasn't very good but situations did arise when you would want that effect)
User avatar
Ravengm
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ravengm »

It's also vaguely useful in Dredge and Reanimator, where you want to dump your hand anyway. But Lion's-Eye Diamond is the same effect but with upside.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

A land that comes into play when discarded or can be played from graveyard would be neat
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

A land you could (re-)play from the graveyard would completely change the balance of the cost "Sacrifice a Land:". I suppose if it had a death-trigger that exiled it, that might make it work.
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

No worse than what Squee, Goblin Nabob did to the cost of discarding a card. Depending on specifics, possibly no worse than what Nether Shadow did for the cost of sacrificing a creature back in alpha.

You could also make the play from discard effect cost mana or require the sacrifice of a different land to make loops harder to pull off.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Having looked at the actual cards that sacrifice lands... it actually doesn't seem as powerful as I thought.

The card it works best with is probably smokestack:
Image


EDIT: Or maybe some kind of mill deck that uses it "fairly" to hit land drops.
Last edited by RadiantPhoenix on Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Post by Eikre »

So people are pretty certain this is gonna be a thing:

ImageImage

We can discuss the many reasons why this leak is probably legit (the argument for it is mostly predicated on the art, but the mechanics and change in templating have precedence in the Great Designer Search and some complaints Maro made on his blog about the dual meaning of the ① symbol), but the larger interest as it pertains to this topic is how these cards look like they could be adding an axis of adjustment to the power of the basic land.

First of all, so that we're clear: The ♦ symbol seems pretty obviously to indicate specifically colorless mana. This is as opposed to ①, which, as a cost, can be paid with any color mana. The idea is that colorless, having picked up a little bit of an identity of its own in the past twenty years, is getting broken out into a little more of a sixth pseudo-color.

So, consider this: Wastes lacks a subtype. All the other basic lands are "Basic Land - Forest" or whatever, and Wastes is just "Basic Land." This plays to some of the misgivings they've previously articulated about breaking cards that assumed only 5 basic land types, but it would work if they incorporated a new rule that Basic Lands, in addition to whatever else they have going on (or, more probably, but of less interest to the topic if true, only if they DON'T have anything else going on) can tap to make colorless mana: ♦.

If ♦ turns out to be a thing that people would ever actually want, then the mechanic plays out like the idea some of you had on the table earlier, where dual lands would be the elementary balancing point for what a basic land could do. Only thing is is that the dual nature would always be split between ♦ and a color. Other dual lands, like the Alpha originals and shocks, which have land subtypes and thus get to tap for two colors, would nonetheless be prevented from tapping for ♦ by virtue of the fact that they lack the Basic supertype.

Ramifications and context:

-In Elder Dragon Highlander, you can only have cards in your deck that match the color identity of your commander. For colorless commanders, that means you don't get a basic land. Printing Wastes solves that.

-Pretty much every format right now (eternal as well as the current standard) has a very easy mana base and there are a lot of people who wanna see more reward in sticking to a deck with fewer than three real colors. By adding a sixth pseudo-color that the more modest decks have an easier time getting into, you can achieve that.

-When the Khans sets rotate, they'll be taking fetchlands and tricolor taps with them. What dual lands are gonna be left?

ImageImageImageImageImage

Well, you've got these guys, which tap for colorless and punish you if you arrogantly trying to use them for anything else. Them, plus the thirteen other lands that tap for colorless, give cards with a ♦ cost a cushy place to land their debut.

-Return to Zendikar is the first two-set block (although Khans was definitely designed for the transition). One of the reasons they wanted to go to a two-set format was that they felt like they didn't have any license to do anything cool with the small sets in every block since they wouldn't have enough room to fully realize their design; moving to a medium-sized second set was a way to consolidate their space. What better way to initiate the new publishing format than to take full advantage and launch a new evergreen mechanic with its own symbology and everything?
Post Reply