Abundant Forest
Land - Forest
(T: Add G to your mana pool)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 5 or more lands, sacrifice Abundant Forest. If you do, draw a card.
Unstable Mountain
Land - Mountain
(T: Add R to your mana pool)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 5 or more lands, sacrifice Unstable Mountain. If you do, Unstable Mountain deals 2 damage to each creature and each player.
et al
Not strictly better than basic lands, but you can easily benefit from their downside
I like the concept, not sure if they should be basic land types though. Green one shouldn't cantrip, it should maybe put out some +1/+1 counters. Currently these seem almost strictly better than basics. Perhaps they should enter the battlefield tapped?
I like the concept, not sure if they should be basic land types though. Green one shouldn't cantrip, it should maybe put out some +1/+1 counters. Currently these seem almost strictly better than basics. Perhaps they should enter the battlefield tapped?
They are not strictly better than basic lands, as they force you to sacrifice them. It is not optional.
I gave them the basic land types so you can do tricks with fetchlands
These are very strong, probably too strong. I think I would like these a little better with one of these restrictions:
5 or more basic lands
5 or more Mountains (and lose the basic land type).
5 or more basic Mountains
It might be slightly counter-intuitive to sacrifice all of the lands that do this after your fifth land is played i.e. play 5 'unstable' lands, sac all of them your next upkeep and have zero lands. Maybe Legendary could help?
Making them etb tapped would make them garbage.
I really like the concept.
Edit: I think the challenge is to not make them an auto 4-of in nearly every modern deck (instead of basics).
Following on the idea of making them legendary, would the following be considered strictly better than a basic?
LTB Forest
Legendary Land - Forest [U] (T : Add G to your mana pool)
When LTB Forest leaves the battlefield, [Good Effect].
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
This is not close to strictly better as a hand of two or more of these can only produce one mana. This drawback is likely to come up from time to time.
The effect would have to be small or involve a "You may pay..If you do,", especially if Forest type is retained.
I don't really like abusing the legend rule this way. The originally designed lands with 'if you do' text don't gain a benefit from the legend rule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Land - Forest
(T: Add G to your mana pool)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 5 or more lands, sacrifice Abundant Forest. If you do, draw a card.
Unstable Mountain
Land - Mountain
(T: Add R to your mana pool)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 5 or more lands, sacrifice Unstable Mountain. If you do, Unstable Mountain deals 2 damage to each creature and each player.
et al
Not strictly better than basic lands, but you can easily benefit from their downside
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
They are not strictly better than basic lands, as they force you to sacrifice them. It is not optional.
I gave them the basic land types so you can do tricks with fetchlands
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
Strictly better in practice is not the same as strictly better in design. The former is allowed, the latter is not.
5 or more basic lands
5 or more Mountains (and lose the basic land type).
5 or more basic Mountains
It might be slightly counter-intuitive to sacrifice all of the lands that do this after your fifth land is played i.e. play 5 'unstable' lands, sac all of them your next upkeep and have zero lands. Maybe Legendary could help?
Making them etb tapped would make them garbage.
I really like the concept.
Edit: I think the challenge is to not make them an auto 4-of in nearly every modern deck (instead of basics).
LTB Forest
Legendary Land - Forest [U]
(T : Add G to your mana pool)
When LTB Forest leaves the battlefield, [Good Effect].
- Manite
The effect would have to be small or involve a "You may pay..If you do,", especially if Forest type is retained.
I don't really like abusing the legend rule this way. The originally designed lands with 'if you do' text don't gain a benefit from the legend rule.