[Single Card Discussion] Golden Lotus

[EnialisLiadon]

Channel is exceptional because it works so well with Lich's Mirror.

I believe Channel is exceptional because it works so well with Goblin Charbelcher.

In any case, 9 mana of any color(s) is certainly huge.  But for the hoops you're jumping through to get it, couldn't you put those efforts towards something that actually wins the game?  If you want a cool Stifle trick, Phyrexian Dreadnaught is pretty nice.  On the same turn that you'll have a tapped Golden Lotus, you could instead have a 12/12 trampler.  While the Lotus does have shroud, it is dependent on having crazy stuff in your hand to play.  And if that craziness is in the form of big expensive, flashy stuff, then your deck is packing dead cards that become marginally useful when you can manage to get the Lotus in play and unscathed.

If that craziness is in the form of card draw and tutors to explode in one turn with a flurry of spells, then it's very possible to do that without running a clunky land that mostly depends on having a Stifle to go with it.

I just don't like this land.  In vintage or otherwise.  I think its effect is insanely contrived.  Just because a card can be made does not mean it should be.

[arctic79]

I'm sure this card may find a home in extended, but it really seems weak for vintage (and legacy) when you can do so much more for the resources wasted on landing this card. 

Also, What is this "Battlefield" crap?  They also used this term on another spoiled card.  Is WotC going WoW on us?  I understand it is a coreset but Seriously do players need terms like "battlefield"?

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I'm sure this card may find a home in extended, but it really seems weak for vintage (and legacy) when you can do so much more for the resources wasted on landing this card. 

Also, What is this "Battlefield" crap?  They also used this term on another spoiled card.  Is WotC going WoW on us?  I understand it is a coreset but Seriously do players need terms like "battlefield"?

Battlefield is apparently their way of making "Play" and "Put into play" less confusing by replacing it with "Put into/onto the battlefield". I suppose there were too many idiots who couldn't read and get the different context with grade 3 English. I pray to God it translated terribly and that's why they're doing it. Also I'm pretty sure once you have 10+ mana on turn 2 you more or less win. There are plenty of expensive bombs that can just plain win with that kind of mana. 12/12 trampler or storm for 20 via Will? Hmmm. I'll take the storm tyvm.

[EnialisLiadon]

Combo decks don't need to use a clunky and vulnerable combo to be able to storm the opponent out by the second or third turn.  I'm not trying to say that a turn 2 Phyrexian Dreadnought is better than a turn 2 or 3 kill, but that it requires less hoops to jump through.

A turn 2 or 3 kill is certainly better than a quick 12/12 trampler.  But that's easy enough to achieve without requiring both a dead land and a narrow counter.

And to have Golden Lotus, Stifle, and Black Lotus/Lotus Petal/Mox Sapphire in your starting hand to produce a turn 1 Golden Lotus is at roughly 4% frequency.  Though I will concede that the chance jumps to a whopping 5% when on the draw.

[arctic79]

Okay, Let's assume you get the broken hand start for 10+ mana 2nd turn.  Then what?  You have more or less blown your load already.  10 mana and you are in top deck mode unless you have a draw spell with the other 5 cards you need (how lucky).  Not to mention FoW and a pitchable card to protect stifle.  So turn one blow 7 cards 10 mana up, turn 2 topdeck a land and lose to any other deck.  Seems really weak.  Now if you topdeck Bargain or Gifts, that's another story.  What are the odds of topdecking one of 2 restricted cards?
I guess just wait and see what happens in deck design after M10 release, but this truly seems like a swing and a miss for Vintage.

[dawgie]

Well at least you can hard cast Progenitus or Nicol Bolas (the Planeswalker) maybe on the third turn. Yay! 

I was thinking the same thing regarding the flavor of the card. Lotus? A Land? And with that ability? I think its a miss for the format. Though I will not be surprised if this comes out in some Legacy and Extended decks.

[Tin_Mox5831]

You know what this card is broken in? Your trade binder. Get your $15+ in trade value and smile all the way to the bank.

[maatn]

You know what this card is broken in? Your trade binder. Get your $15+ in trade value and smile all the way to the bank.

QFT

I do not see how this could be a serious addition to a core set. I could see how this clunky card fit in some crazy theme, where P9-cards have infested the land. But this card in a core set? And in to the battlefield?

Woe is us...

[kkoie]

I agree, I don't see this card holding any value at all, except as a $1 rare in the mystery grab-box.  I just can't see anyone taking the time and effort to try and break this card, when there are other, easier ways to generate copious amounts of mana and play a bunch of broken cards.

[Diakonov]

Well, I suppose it's not all that surprising for this to come out right after an all-gold set was released.  Also, you can now hardcast a Progenitus in Standard.

I continue to believe that the only realistic way this card could be used would be to sit back and set up a win (like TPS), not to try and figure out some bizarre first-turn win scenario.  At the right time, it can give you the burst of mana you need to virtually assure victory.  Imagine Duressing for a couple turns, Vamping for Tendrils/EtW/Mind's Desire, then dropping your hand the next turn.  Who cares that you had to sack 3 lands.

The question is whether or not a deck like TPS can hold out long enough to set that up.  I think it ought to be tough in this current environment, where even the control decks can play aggressively.

[kkoie]

The only problem I see with that though is that in order to support golden lotus, you'd have to run what... 20 lands at least?  Just to make sure you draw the 4 lands needed by turn 4?  Statistically w/out taking draw spells into account, you would need 24 lands to ensure 4 lands drawn by turn 4 on average.  That and unless you cheat it into play, you can't use Golden Lotus until turn 5 at the earliest.  Thats awfully ponderous.

[Xyre]

Channel is exceptional because it works so well with Lich's Mirror.

I believe Channel is exceptional because it works so well with Goblin Charbelcher.

To an extent, but you even then don't want more than 7 mana. There's very little in the format that makes sense with 9 mana. The only example where I'd want to generate massive amounts of mana off such a spell would be Channeling myself to death with the Mirror in play.

[policehq]

When there are two-card infinite combos, why are we discussing 2 and 3-card 9-mana combos?

[TracerBullet]

Not to question the moderators, but seriously, shouldn't this be in the Vintage Improvement section?  It's a situational 2-card combo that generates 9 mana.  I'd argue it's only mildly better than Lake of the Dead.

I'd challenge anyone on this server who thinks differently to build me a competitive deck based on Golden Lotus.  If you do, I'll eat a playset of Four.  Foil, if you'd like.

[Diakonov]

I think if we plan on discussing this card as "archetype worthy," it certainly sounds like Improvement material.  As a 1-of in certain decks, it seems possible.  I can imagine scenarios in TPS where it would be a bomb to tutor for.  I think while your Lake comparison is justified, if Lake had shroud it would be fantastic.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Not to question the moderators, but seriously, shouldn't this be in the Vintage Improvement section?  It's a situational 2-card combo that generates 9 mana.  I'd argue it's only mildly better than Lake of the Dead.

I'd challenge anyone on this server who thinks differently to build me a competitive deck based on Golden Lotus.  If you do, I'll eat a playset of Four.  Foil, if you'd like.

How is Golden Lotus anything at all like Lake of the Dead? Lake can only be cast on turn 3, costs you 3 lands, adds less mana, doesn't have shroud, and has absolutely no reasonable way to bypass the disadvantage it generates. May as well say Cancel is as good as FoW...

This thread shouldn't even exist as the card isn't even remotely verified to be real but if it were then I see no reason for something that is potentially as powerful as this to be in the Improvement Forum. I'm sure plenty of people thought Gifts Ungiven and Ad Nauseam were terrible cards when they came out and look what they ended up doing. I mean if you've memorized all 10,000+ magic cards and know every card that is coming out in the set along with Lotus and have gone through interactions with all of them and know what the DCI will do in 14 days and tried your absolute hardest to break it and still failed then you can say it should be in the Improvement Forum. This isn't Wood Elves, it might be just the card a deck like Masknaught was looking for to take it to a reasonable competative level for example and it opens the door for plenty of possibilities.

When there are two-card infinite combos, why are we discussing 2 and 3-card 9-mana combos?

When there are two-card infinite combos, why are we discussing 10-card combos?

[AmbivalentDuck]

Now officially fake

[Diakonov]

Lame.  I wonder what that picture is going to be used for then, if it's used at all.

[Lurker101]

Lame.  I wonder what that picture is going to be used for then, if it's used at all.

Maybe Gilded Lotus?

[pierce]

there is a significant chance that the card is either fake, or has been spoiled wrong.

during the players lunch of PT Honololu's t8, Conley Woods inquired about this card to Brian David Marshall. BDM's reply was that when he asked the R&D team about the card, every member questioned would only laugh.

[Random Noob]

Lame.  I wonder what that picture is going to be used for then, if it's used at all.

Maybe Gilded Lotus?

Maybe Black Lotus ? Perhaps they want to knock us totally down. No, just joking. I guess there is something wrong perhaps with the Numbers, when it wasn't corectly spoiled. Producing 9 Mana sound a bit abstract, even for Magic nowadays. If it would less producing (3), it could be that you have to sac less lands (1).

I think it will be a new card, maybe it's a new Artwork for the Gilden Lotus, but imo then would have been spoiled yet.

[Phoenix888]

every member questioned would only laugh.

Yet another example showing that Wizards doesn't care about Vintage.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

every member questioned would only laugh.

Yet another example showing that Wizards doesn't care about Vintage.

I think you might be seeing somethin thats isn't there. Its not like the vintage comunity would be the only one effected by this card, if it's real and ends up being playable somehow. WOTC is not a bunch of huge douchebags.

[pierce]

every member questioned would only laugh.

Yet another example showing that Wizards doesn't care about Vintage.

WOTC is not a bunch of huge douchebags.

tell that to my Treza foil from the PT. that was a d bag move for sure.

[Darkenslight]

What if it read like this?

Golden Lotus
Legendary Land
Golden Lotus enters the battlefield tapped.
As Golden Lotus enters the battlefield, sacrifice two basic lands or sacrifice Golden Lotus.
 : Add four mana of any combination of colours to your mana pool.

Would that be better or worse than the card spoiled?  What if the number was six mana instead of nine?  Would that still be unplayable?

[Wagner]

What if it read like this?

Golden Lotus
Legendary Land
Golden Lotus enters the battlefield tapped.
As Golden Lotus enters the battlefield, sacrifice two basic lands or sacrifice Golden Lotus.
 : Add four mana of any combination of colours to your mana pool.

Would that be better or worse than the card spoiled?  What if the number was six mana instead of nine?  Would that still be unplayable?

Not sure I get your question, if it would be unplayable à 9 mana, how do you figure that 6 mana would make it better?

They land you proposed doesn't have Shroud, so it's garbage right there. Even with it, it's too much like Lotus Vale to be interesting.

[Diakonov]

Assuming it had shroud, and it only sacs two lands like you suggested but produces 6 mana, it would be much better IMO.  It would still be enough to greatly facilitate a "going off" turn, yet it can become active a whole turn earlier.

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

every member questioned would only laugh.

Yet another example showing that Wizards doesn't care about Vintage.

WOTC is not a bunch of huge douchebags.

tell that to my Treza foil from the PT. that was a d bag move for sure.

I sugest you not look this in the mouth

[Darkenslight]

What if it read like this?

Golden Lotus
Legendary Land
Golden Lotus enters the battlefield tapped.
As Golden Lotus enters the battlefield, sacrifice two basic lands or sacrifice Golden Lotus.
 : Add four mana of any combination of colours to your mana pool.

Would that be better or worse than the card spoiled?  What if the number was six mana instead of nine?  Would that still be unplayable?

Not sure I get your question, if it would be unplayable à 9 mana, how do you figure that 6 mana would make it better?

They land you proposed doesn't have Shroud, so it's garbage right there. Even with it, it's too much like Lotus Vale to be interesting.

That's exactly my point; it's quite possible that the card has been spoiled incorrectly. Maybe the numbers are off completely.  Also, note the distinct lack to sac, as part of the cost. 

[pierce]

cept the horse is worth money. the promo is totally worthless. which is balls. they could have picked any card. any card.
bummer.

total d bag move.