...Are you trying to say that ... "strictly better" is not a good enough reason for a dual land not to be printed?
I'm saying that this is not even strictly a dual land to begin with (see thread title). It lies somewhere between a basic and an Alpha dual sans the basic land types in the type-line.
Before a realistic evalution of it can be made, one must wrap his or her head around the reality that this is not a dual land. It only produces one color of mana. And it does not have any basic land types on the type-line.
Then it's a matter of figuring out whether or not it's significantly and relevantly strictly better than a basic land.
Cloud Sea - I do actually like this. It can't be fetched with fetch lands, yet it provides appropriate mana fixing but doesn't completely outclass typical dual lands.
City of Gold - Legendary is something that is best avoided with lands, especially if you're going to rely heavily on it for mana fixing. Make it nonlegendary and come up with a drawback to its use.
Cloud Sea (Common)
Land
You may have Cloud Sea enter the battlefield with a charge counter on it.
If Cloud Sea has a charge counter on it, it is a plains. Otherwise, it is an island.
Cycled Out...
I've been catching some slack about this land being "strictly better" than basics at another fantasy forum. So far I've heard nothing better than "the WotC Party said so speech" which I think should be interpreted in context of WotC's own designs rather than our interpretations of their words. My case in point is the fetchlands, which are strictly better than basics. And my evidence is that the vast majority of competitive decks in every format runs them - even monocolored decks, which is the real proof. When a land is run in favor of a basic land in a slot that only a basic land is needed for, then the land is clearly "strictly better than". RDW for example running 8+ fetchlands in favor of basic mountains - this is a monored deck we're talking about here.
The fetchland "drawback" of 1-time life loss is nothing compared to otherwise free, essentially uncounterable, undestroyable, deck-thinning, grave-feeding, dual/basic-fetching, deck-shuffling, and comboing with stuff like Sensei's Divining Top, Crucible of Worlds, Life From The Loam, as well as others, and every landfall card all at instant speed. I don't know about you guys, but to me that sounds way better than a basic land. So when the WotC Party claims that it doesn't make lands that are strictly better than basics, I just don't believe them in the strictest sense.
What I mean by that is that I think that even WotC's concept of "a land that is strictly better than a basic land" is something that would more often than not be favored over a basic land whether it has a drawback or not (*cough* fetchlands *cough*). Even "nonbasic" is considered by many to be a drawback these days what with all the nonbasic land destruction - especially in the older formats... there is a reason Wasteland is $70+. (Except in the case of fetchlands which can be activated in response to destruction effects.) Of course there's always the legendary "drawback" which clearly balances out things like Gaea's Cradle, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Tolarian Academy, Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Karakas, etc., etc. none of which are strictly better than basic lands (/sarcasm).
Back to the point, I think that the WotC Party concept of "strictly better" is not exemplified by Cloud Sea above, but rather by the following examples.
Fantasy Island
Land - Island T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast blue spells.
Pleasure Palace
Land T: Add W to your mana pool. Gain 1 life.
Invisible Tree
Land
Hexproof T: Add G to your mana pool.
Deadlands
Land T: Add B to your mana pool. T, Sacrifice Deadlands: Destroy target nonswamp land.
City of Gold
Legendary Land T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
Does anyone have an angle for or against the Cloud City design in terms of being strictly better than basic land?
Cloud Sea (Common)
Land
You may have Cloud Sea enter the battlefield with a charge counter on it.
If Cloud Sea has a charge counter on it, it is a plains. Otherwise, it is an island.
Cycled Out...
I've been catching some slack about this land being "strictly better" than basics at another fantasy forum. So far I've heard nothing better than "the WotC Party said so" speech, which has little bearing on reality as it is a WotC tradition to break its own conventions. My case in point is the fetchlands, which are strictly better than basics. And my evidence is that the vast majority of competitive decks in every format runs them - even monocolored decks, which is the real proof. When a land is run in favor of a basic land in a slot that only a basic land is needed for, then the land is clearly "strictly better than". RDW for example running 8+ fetchlands in favor of basic mountains - this is a monored deck we're talking about here.
1-time life loss is nothing compared to otherwise free, essentially uncounterable, undestroyable, deck-thinning, grave-feeding, dual/basic-fetching, deck-shuffling, and comboing with stuff like Crucible of Worlds, Life From The Loam, and landfall all at instant speed. I don't know about you guys, but to me that sounds way better than a basic land. So when the WotC Party claims that it doesn't make lands that are strictly better than basics, I just don't believe them in the strictest sense.
What I mean is that I think that even WotC's concept of a land that is strictly better than a basic is something that would clearly, always be favored over a basic land, drawback or not (*cough* fetchlands *cough*). Frankly, "nonbasic" could be considered a drawback these days what with all the nonbasic land destruction. (Except in the case of fetchlands.) Of course there's always the legendary "drawback" which clearly balances out things like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Tolarian Academy, Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Karakas, etc., etc. none of which are strictly better than basic lands (/sarcasm).
Back to the point, I think that WotC concept of "strictly better" is not encompassed by Cloud Sea above, but rather by the following examples.
Paradise Island
Land - Island T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast blue spells.
Invisible Tree
Land
Hexproof T: Add G to your mana pool.
Deadlands
Land T: Add B to your mana pool. T, Sacrifice Deadlands: Destroy target nonswamp land.
City of Gold
Legendary Land T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
Super Expanse Land (U) ,T, Sacrifice CARDNAME and another land: Search your library for up to two basic land cards with different types and put them onto the field. (Then shuffle your library.)
Awesome idea.
This still doesn't represent or replace a competitive dual land imo.
1) It's almost right. People pay U or 2 life to see opponent's hand with Gitaxian Probe and it's considered fair, so the first time you do that it's about fair. On the other hand if you play four such lands one after another this drawback becomes irrelevant, so you want to play either no such lands or only such lands. If you can tweak it so that people would do that only once, it might be OK.
2) Way too expensive, especially at random. Even discard a card is too expensive.
3) That's not a drawback unless you're playing mill mirror match. Grim Lavamancer, Threshold, Reanimator would play that over alpha duals. Other decks would not care either way.
4) Wouldn't people play 100% duals then?
Enemy-colored SOM/M1x duals are what we need. Also, shockland reprints.
1. Good point.
2. Discarding a card at random is too expensive for 99% of decks. The other 1% would be the only decks playing discard duals and would certainly only be playing them to exploit the "disadvantage". In my opinion, this probable outcome relegates the discard to too narrow rather than too expensive. Choosing and discarding would be way too good. "Yeah, I'll discard Iona, Shield of Emeria, tap for B, Reanimate. Hmm, you played the "expose your hand dual" last turn... you have a hand full of blue cards with no FoW obviously... I pick blue." It might make for a sweet legendary land though(that would get banned in Legacy were it to produce B).
3. Yeah, a dual that mills you when it etb is a Dredge engine.
I broke Warjax's two abilities into two creatures - Iliri Resistance Fighter and Iliri Shieldmage. I increased his mana cost by 4 and changed Warjax to be more of a combat-encourager.
I like the basic fetchland too. I'm not sure how printable it really is though, simply because of the sheer quantities of shuffling that would be taking place in constructed. I mean, they're printable, but they'd probably wind up getting banned due to time loss. Assuming it's cycled out, there's no reason not to have 10-12 of the R/C ones and 10-12 basic mountains in a monored deck for example.
The point is that it's something to remember that isn't necessary.A fetchland does essentially the same thing, in fact with even more utility with things like landfall and Life From the Loam, but without that one more little thing to remember. Even if you consider it insignificant, something to remember is always going to be worse than not having to remember if there isn't an appreciable benefit in exchange. I don't see what a split land has to offer that makes it better.
Fair enough. How about this.
Cloud Sea (Common)
Land
You may have Cloud Sea enter the battlefield with a charge counter on it.
If Cloud Sea has a charge counter on it, it is a plains. Otherwise, it is an island.
This Walker should cost 2RG, and the first ability should dig for FIVE (like Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas.)
The second ability would be fine if this costed 4cc. I would even make it cost -2, so your walker doesnt die right away and you can use it twice if you use the + loyalty once.
Hrm, you're probably right. And for some brainfart reason, I was thinking Gifts was 4U. If you make it 2G, then it becomes a green melding of Gifts Ungiven and Intuition. Very interesting.
Great point about the PW Giga, especially since my set will have Structures which are artifacts that can be attacked in the same way planeswalkers can.
WotC doesn't design cards based on eternal formats and neither should we. NOBODY can design around stupid crap like dredge and the Eldrazi forever so why bother at all.
Resistance Movement (Common) WU
Instant
As an additional cost to cast Resistance Movement, you may tap any number of creatures you control.
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each creature tapped this way. In order to rise, one must first kneel. How much more so for a kingdom. – Warjax
Mental Resistance (Uncommon) WU
Instant
Spells cost an additional 1 to cast this turn. Draw a card. Have faith my brethren – the facts are not always true. - Warjax
Underground Resistance (Uncommon) WU
Enchantment
Whenever a land enters the battlefield, you may have target creature gain shroud and become unblockable this turn. That creature can block an additional creature this turn. You can’t go anywhere these days without hearing something about Warjax’s resistance movement. It’s like a secret that everyone knows about.
Iliri Resistance Fighter (Uncommon) 1WU
Creature - Human Soldier
2/3
Creatures can't attack you or permanents you control unless their controller pays 1 for each creature he or she controls that's attacking you or a permanent you control.
Iliri Shieldmage (Uncommon) WU
Creature - Human Wizard
1/3
Spells and abilities you don’t control that target you or permanents you control cost an additional 1. Think not of peace as a state of kingdoms, but as a state of mind. – Warjax
Continued Resistance (Rare) WU
Enchantment
Spells your opponents cast cost 1 more to cast. Sisters and brothers, be wary and think not like our enemies, lest we become our own enemies. - Warjax
Warjax, Leader of the Resistance (Mythic) 4WU
Legendary Creature – Human Advisor
4/8
Creatures you control have vigilance and hexproof and can block an additional creature.
I'm saying that this is not even strictly a dual land to begin with (see thread title). It lies somewhere between a basic and an Alpha dual sans the basic land types in the type-line.
Before a realistic evalution of it can be made, one must wrap his or her head around the reality that this is not a dual land. It only produces one color of mana. And it does not have any basic land types on the type-line.
Then it's a matter of figuring out whether or not it's significantly and relevantly strictly better than a basic land.
My perspective exactly.
Thanks for the input.
I've been catching some slack about this land being "strictly better" than basics at another fantasy forum. So far I've heard nothing better than "the WotC Party said so speech" which I think should be interpreted in context of WotC's own designs rather than our interpretations of their words. My case in point is the fetchlands, which are strictly better than basics. And my evidence is that the vast majority of competitive decks in every format runs them - even monocolored decks, which is the real proof. When a land is run in favor of a basic land in a slot that only a basic land is needed for, then the land is clearly "strictly better than". RDW for example running 8+ fetchlands in favor of basic mountains - this is a monored deck we're talking about here.
The fetchland "drawback" of 1-time life loss is nothing compared to otherwise free, essentially uncounterable, undestroyable, deck-thinning, grave-feeding, dual/basic-fetching, deck-shuffling, and comboing with stuff like Sensei's Divining Top, Crucible of Worlds, Life From The Loam, as well as others, and every landfall card all at instant speed. I don't know about you guys, but to me that sounds way better than a basic land. So when the WotC Party claims that it doesn't make lands that are strictly better than basics, I just don't believe them in the strictest sense.
What I mean by that is that I think that even WotC's concept of "a land that is strictly better than a basic land" is something that would more often than not be favored over a basic land whether it has a drawback or not (*cough* fetchlands *cough*). Even "nonbasic" is considered by many to be a drawback these days what with all the nonbasic land destruction - especially in the older formats... there is a reason Wasteland is $70+. (Except in the case of fetchlands which can be activated in response to destruction effects.) Of course there's always the legendary "drawback" which clearly balances out things like Gaea's Cradle, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Tolarian Academy, Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Karakas, etc., etc. none of which are strictly better than basic lands (/sarcasm).
Back to the point, I think that the WotC Party concept of "strictly better" is not exemplified by Cloud Sea above, but rather by the following examples.
Does anyone have an angle for or against the Cloud City design in terms of being strictly better than basic land?
I've been catching some slack about this land being "strictly better" than basics at another fantasy forum. So far I've heard nothing better than "the WotC Party said so" speech, which has little bearing on reality as it is a WotC tradition to break its own conventions. My case in point is the fetchlands, which are strictly better than basics. And my evidence is that the vast majority of competitive decks in every format runs them - even monocolored decks, which is the real proof. When a land is run in favor of a basic land in a slot that only a basic land is needed for, then the land is clearly "strictly better than". RDW for example running 8+ fetchlands in favor of basic mountains - this is a monored deck we're talking about here.
1-time life loss is nothing compared to otherwise free, essentially uncounterable, undestroyable, deck-thinning, grave-feeding, dual/basic-fetching, deck-shuffling, and comboing with stuff like Crucible of Worlds, Life From The Loam, and landfall all at instant speed. I don't know about you guys, but to me that sounds way better than a basic land. So when the WotC Party claims that it doesn't make lands that are strictly better than basics, I just don't believe them in the strictest sense.
What I mean is that I think that even WotC's concept of a land that is strictly better than a basic is something that would clearly, always be favored over a basic land, drawback or not (*cough* fetchlands *cough*). Frankly, "nonbasic" could be considered a drawback these days what with all the nonbasic land destruction. (Except in the case of fetchlands.) Of course there's always the legendary "drawback" which clearly balances out things like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Tolarian Academy, Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Karakas, etc., etc. none of which are strictly better than basic lands (/sarcasm).
Back to the point, I think that WotC concept of "strictly better" is not encompassed by Cloud Sea above, but rather by the following examples.
Awesome idea.
This still doesn't represent or replace a competitive dual land imo.
1. Good point.
2. Discarding a card at random is too expensive for 99% of decks. The other 1% would be the only decks playing discard duals and would certainly only be playing them to exploit the "disadvantage". In my opinion, this probable outcome relegates the discard to too narrow rather than too expensive. Choosing and discarding would be way too good. "Yeah, I'll discard Iona, Shield of Emeria, tap for B, Reanimate. Hmm, you played the "expose your hand dual" last turn... you have a hand full of blue cards with no FoW obviously... I pick blue." It might make for a sweet legendary land though(that would get banned in Legacy were it to produce B).
3. Yeah, a dual that mills you when it etb is a Dredge engine.
Fair enough. How about this.
Cloud Sea (Common)
Land
You may have Cloud Sea enter the battlefield with a charge counter on it.
If Cloud Sea has a charge counter on it, it is a plains. Otherwise, it is an island.
Cycled Out...
"Loads" less memory issues?
Oh wait, I forgot, we're talking ten-year-olds here. You aren't ten are you?
QFT
Thank you.
EDIT: Added Underground Resistance. Enjoy.
WU
Instant
As an additional cost to cast Resistance Movement, you may tap any number of creatures you control.
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each creature tapped this way.
In order to rise, one must first kneel. How much more so for a kingdom. – Warjax
Mental Resistance (Uncommon)
WU
Instant
Spells cost an additional 1 to cast this turn. Draw a card.
Have faith my brethren – the facts are not always true. - Warjax
Underground Resistance (Uncommon)
WU
Enchantment
Whenever a land enters the battlefield, you may have target creature gain shroud and become unblockable this turn. That creature can block an additional creature this turn.
You can’t go anywhere these days without hearing something about Warjax’s resistance movement. It’s like a secret that everyone knows about.
Iliri Resistance Fighter (Uncommon)
1WU
Creature - Human Soldier
2/3
Creatures can't attack you or permanents you control unless their controller pays 1 for each creature he or she controls that's attacking you or a permanent you control.
Iliri Shieldmage (Uncommon)
WU
Creature - Human Wizard
1/3
Spells and abilities you don’t control that target you or permanents you control cost an additional 1.
Think not of peace as a state of kingdoms, but as a state of mind. – Warjax
Continued Resistance (Rare)
WU
Enchantment
Spells your opponents cast cost 1 more to cast.
Sisters and brothers, be wary and think not like our enemies, lest we become our own enemies. - Warjax
Warjax, Leader of the Resistance (Mythic)
4WU
Legendary Creature – Human Advisor
4/8
Creatures you control have vigilance and hexproof and can block an additional creature.