Property Lands

[Bram]

I actually got this idea from the 7 mana costing artifact/land/creature orb that's being discussed right now. Someone said: 'can't you play it for free if it's a land?'. And why the heck can you always play lands for free? Just 'cause putting them into play doesn't use the stack doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.

So here's the thought: lands that require a mana cost when you put 'em in play. Since the effect they'd produce is still color-specific (unlike artifacts), but you need to use a land drop to play play it, the mana cost can be somewhat lower than that of a similar Enchantment effect (or arficact, for that matter). This is offset slightly by the fact that it'd be slightly harder to get rid of than an enchantment, so it can't be much cheaper. Sadly, Wizards feel that land needs to make mana, so you have to take that into the calculation as well.

From a flavor standpoint, we could think of these lands as being 'bought' by the mage. Like property.

There's various things one could do with this, like a simple mana accellerator.

Upscale Acreage
Land - Property
When Upscale Acreage comes into play, sacrifice it unless you pay 2.
T: add 2 to your mana pool.
Work and acquire, and thou hast chained the wheel of Chance.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

or something that actually DOES something:

Unreal Estate
Land - Property
When Unreal Estate comes into play, sacrifice it unless you pay 1UU.
T: add U to your mana pool.
1UU, T: draw a card.
The fabled price of knowledge is sometimes cold hard cash.

Any suggestions?

[Jebus]

Think Lotus Vale.

You need to change those triggers to replacement effects to prevent abuse.

[Jacob Orlove]

Yeah, that first one basically just comes into play tapped.

[Bram]

Hmm. I kinda thought I did prevent that since I used the dragon lair's wording. I guess I was wrong.

Obviously the idea is you shouldn't be able to use them before you pay the cost. It's pay the cost or lose tha land. How do I word that? I think this will do, but then I'd have to loose the flavor text for space reasons  (it wasn't brilliant anyway).

Current wording:

Upscale Acreage
Land - Property
If Upscale Acreage would come into play, pay instead. If you do, put Upscale Acreage into play. If you don't, put it in it's owner's graveyard.
: Add to your mana pool.

Unreal Estate
Land - Property
If Unreal Estate would come into play, pay {U} instead. If you do, put Unreal Estate into play. If you don't, put it in it's owner's graveyard.
: add to your mana pool.
{U}, T: draw a card.

Also, I would stress that this isn't about the cards per se but more about the idea behind them (though I believe the last one is shaping up nicely).

[Jebus]

You've got it right.  Just like Lotus Vale.

The lair lands can actually be tapped for mana in response to their trigger.

[Matt]

Yeah, my favorite opening for my casual enchantress deck is t1 Treva's Ruins, Land Tax, go.

I like these. I wish there were a way to shorten the Vale clause. What if they said "Upscale Acreage cannot be played unless you pay more to play it"?

[Jacob Orlove]

The Acreage isn't bad. People are willing to play Temple of the False God in T2 (and the Urzatron, and Cloudposts), so this should fit in well. It's kind of like worn powerstone.

The second seems really expensive.

[Bram]

Jacob: compare the second one to Treasure Trove (a 2UU enchantment that draws you a card for a 2UU activation).

I made mine a bit cheaper because of the reasons mentioned above (i.e. it requires a land drop). While it may seem expensive, you have to realise that it's basically an uncounterable treasure trove. If you go Island, Mox, Island you can play this on turn three and have an uncounterable, unrestricted source for extra cards that can only be stopped by Wasteland or Stifle...

If I made it cheaper, it would definitely be too good.

On the forst one: yeah, I kinda modeled it after worn powerstone. It's slightly better, since you get the 2 mana on the same turn as you play it (in WP's case, you spend 3 to have 5 on the following turn, in my case you spend 3 to have 2 this turn AND 5 the following turn).

[Jebus]

Yeah, my favorite opening for my casual enchantress deck is t1 Treva's Ruins, Land Tax, go.

I like these. I wish there were a way to shorten the Vale clause. What if they said "Upscale Acreage cannot be played unless you pay more to play it"?

Adding an additional cost to a land is a bit awkward.  That's partially why Lotus Vale is worded the way it is.  The Lotus Vale wording is fine.

[Matt]

Yeah it works, but if we have to include that on every such card, it limits what kind of cards we can make - there's only so much room left for actual abilities.

[Bram]

Matt is correct. I have already had to omit flavor text for even these very simple abilities.

The question I pose is this one: does Matt's suggested wording work? Are there advantages or drawbacks?

[Jacob Orlove]

But Treasure Trove isn't good. This takes 3 mainphase mana to play, and can't come out until turn 4 anyway, which is pretty bad for a control deck. In type 1 and extended, there's just so many wastelands that spending 3 mana to play a land will almost never be worth it (ignoring the tremendous resources you have to sink into this to get cards back). In standard, you have no mana acceleration, so this will only be good if control decks are completely dominant. With the current weakening of blue, that seems less likely.

[Bram]

Yeah, but I think lowering either cost will make it too good. I'm still not convinced it isn't good in its current form, even.

Treasure trove would be a LOT better if it were:

Treasure Trove - 1UU
Enchantment
Treasure Trove cannot be countered by spells or effects.
1UU: draw a card. Use this ability only once each turn.

I know it's not a perfect analogy (on the plus side, mine can't be killed with anything other than land destruction and on the down side it costs you a land drop), but that looks a lot more like my card now. And you gotta sgree, it's a whole bunch more powerful than the original.

What would your suggestion be?

[Jacob Orlove]

Except this costs 1UUU to draw the card, because it taps. I think you could safely lower the CIP cost to just UU.

[Jebus]

Yeah it works, but if we have to include that on every such card, it limits what kind of cards we can make - there's only so much room left for actual abilities.

I can't say the rules don't support an additional cost for a land, but it seems like you would need to add more rules to clarify this.

I'm certain there is a reason they haven't tried this before.

An additional cost would also be bypassed by effects that put lands directly into play.

[Bram]

This was a little while ago, but I'd like to 24h. clock them nevertheless.

[Matt]

If Upscale Acreage would come into play, pay  instead. If you do, put Upscale Acreage into play. If you don't, put it in it's owner's graveyard.

What about shortening this to a plain "When this comes into play" and upping the cost to , and letting them use the land itself to pay the four mana? Makes it shorter. Similarly, the other would have a CIP cost of {U}{U}.

Also, I really like these cards, so if you could make more I would be pleased as punch.

[Bram]

Hmm. I dunno. For some reason, I expect timing complications with that. Let's just use Lotus Vale's catch-all wording. On the other hand, that leaves little room for the flavor, which was sicked cool. Hmm, maybe we don't need Lotus Vale wording here.

Also, the first one (Upscale Acreage) is just plain weird. I wanna cratch that one and use the name for a new one. I'll try one for every color.

That other one doesn't actually need to have a CIP costy of 1UUU, O think. If I use the Lair wording, I can use it to pay for its own ability. But then I can't use it for something good for an entire turn. That's an interesting tradeoff, I think.

[EDIT] I'll close this and continue the conversation in the new cycle thread I opened.