Landmorph: playing stuff as face-down lands

[jro]

So I was thinking of the abilities of cycling and morph.  One of the things these abilities create is the notion of a kind of "generic" function that cards can have.  Cycling (based on its original cost) kind of says that any card can be a 2cc spell that says "Draw a card."  Morph says that in some ways any creature card could be a 3cc 2/2 creature.  So I was thinking, is there an equivalent for lands?  That is, could cards be played as though they were (say) lands that tapped for 1 colorless?  I was thinking that the cards played in this fashion could be lands themselves, or be other types of permanents.  For instance:

Lotus Field
Land
If Lotus Field would come into play, put it into its owner's graveyard instead.
T: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.
Landmorph Sacrifice two untapped lands (You may play this card face down as a land with "T: Add 1 to your mana pool".  Turn it face up any time for its landmorph cost.)

Darksteel Lode
Land
Darksteel Lode is indestructible.
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Landmorph 0 (You may play this card face down as a land with "T: Add 1 to your mana pool".  Turn it face up any time for its landmorph cost.)

Diamond Mine
Land
T, Remove a mine counter from Diamond Mine: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
When Diamond Mine is turned face up, put X mine counters on it.
Landmorph X (You may play this card face down as a land with "T: Add 1 to your mana pool".  Turn it face up any time for its landmorph cost.)

Muckstone Barbarian
2RR
Creature -- Elemental Barbarian
When Muckstone Barbarian is turned face up, destroy target face down land.
3/2
Landmorph 2R (You may play this card face down as a land with "T: Add 1 to your mana pool".  Turn it face up any time for its landmorph cost.)
"I thought they were dirty, when really they were dirt." - Lothar Wildeye, barbarian chief

Hulking Pinefolk
4GG
Creature -- Treefolk
5/5
Landmorph 4GG (You may play this card face down as a land with "T: Add 1 to your mana pool".  Turn it face up any time for its landmorph cost.)
Barren earth one year, a thriving forest the next.

The basic purpose of this mechanic is to "smooth out" draws, in the same way that cycling spells or morphs do, only in this case they do so by insuring that your hand will have playable mana sources.  This might allow spells with higher than average mana cost to be playable, since with a decent number of these the modal turn that players miss their first land drop could be pushed higher.

On creatures, this mechanic would play something like Stalking Stones.  Stalking Stones makes you overpay by 1 to get a 3/3 artifact creature (which often cost 5), and it still taps for mana.  So I think paying 4GG to get a trample-less 5/5 is probably fair, since 5/5 green tramplers cost 5G.

One possible change to this mechanic might be to make landmorph lands come into play tapped.  That might free up some design space in terms of costs, but would seriously limit the utility of the cards.

I don't think there's much of a concern over confusing face down lands with face down creatures since people tend to keep their lands and creatures separated. 

Keep in mind that this isn't discussion of a particular card, but rather the general ability.  What design difficulties do you see with this?  Is the ability unworkable?  What limitations might exist on what can be done with it?

[Nightfall]

I developed this same mechanic a few years back.  There are a few problems with it though.  1) Why play lands when you could just play landmorphs, which are going to be more useful unless they have a worse drawback (like coming into play tapped).  2) even if the cards are overcosted, we still have uncounterable creatures etc. that have the bonus of being lands.

The ones I came up with were overcosted and were always better when played straight from hand, as opposed to landmorphed.  Overall it is great for consistency, but I'm not sure the game wants this much consistency.

[jro]

I developed this same mechanic a few years back.  There are a few problems with it though.  1) Why play lands when you could just play landmorphs, which are going to be more useful unless they have a worse drawback (like coming into play tapped).  2) even if the cards are overcosted, we still have uncounterable creatures etc. that have the bonus of being lands.

The question of whether or not they should come into play tapped is definitely something that's up in the air.  I kind of like them being untapped, since that would seem to allow for more interesting choices.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to really decide one way or the other without seeing how each version would work in practice.  I will say that the prototype here seems to be Stalking Stones, and I think landmorph cards can be balanced around that.

The ones I came up with were overcosted and were always better when played straight from hand, as opposed to landmorphed.

Do you think that's a problem with the ones I've listed?  I think it's possible to make landmorphs that are better played face down, if nothing else by giving them "unmorph" abilities.

Overall it is great for consistency, but I'm not sure the game wants this much consistency.

I don't really know how much consistency "this much" consistency is.  Again, I think it's something that we'd have to try out to see.

[Anusien]

1) How much does it cost to play these as lands?
2) How do you distinguish from morphs?
3) What is the flavor of a land suddenly turning into a creature?

This is a pretty clever mechanic, but I want to distinguish it from Morph and let it generate its own identity.  I'm also worried that this will run into the same fundamental problems as morph.  Both mechanics are inteded for limited play.  Both mechanics are linear (they get better the more you use them) and are bad when only one or two are playable.  Both are tempo blackholes; the difference is that Morph at least gives you generic beaters.

[jro]

1) How much does it cost to play these as lands?
2) How do you distinguish from morphs?
3) What is the flavor of a land suddenly turning into a creature?

It costs nothing (besides your land drop) to play them as lands.  They are distinguished from morphs in practice by virtue of the fact that most people keep their lands separate from their other permanents.  Also, the player controlling them can always look at their face down cards to see what they are in case they lose track (just like with multiple regular morphs).  As for flavor, keep in mind that not all of these have to turn into creatures.  For the ones that do, I think of the creatures as aspects of the land made manifest through paying the landmorph cost.  So with the Treefolk, the seeds are in the land, and providing mana causes them to erupt from the ground into giant trees.  With the Barbarian, I was thinking that there could be a type of rock that was prone to animation, and I called it here Muckstone.  Kind of how Flowstone or Darksteel had certain properties associated with it, Muckstone is associate with turning into creatures.  Honestly, I think the flavor of lands turning into creatures isn't that hard to pull off: it's been done since Alpha and there's lots of room there to work with.  But lands turning into Enchantments or Artifacts... that might prove a challenge.  I don't think I'd try to make too many of these turning into creatures.  It's something that can be done, but not where I'd like to push the mechanic.

This is a pretty clever mechanic, but I want to distinguish it from Morph and let it generate its own identity.  I'm also worried that this will run into the same fundamental problems as morph.  Both mechanics are inteded for limited play.  Both mechanics are linear (they get better the more you use them) and are bad when only one or two are playable.  Both are tempo blackholes; the difference is that Morph at least gives you generic beaters.

I don't think these are necessarily bad when only one or two are playable.  A land that taps for colorless is more useful than a 2/2 creature.  For instance, I think Diamond Mine (listed above) would be good or bad as a multiland based on its individual merits, but also contribute to decks exploiting the linearity of the mechanic.

[Matt]

They are distinguished from morphs in practice by virtue of the fact that most people keep their lands separate from their other permanents.  Also, the player controlling them can always look at their face down cards to see what they are in case they lose track (just like with multiple regular morphs).

That's not really enough. They need to be truly distinguishable. Even the morph rules say you're supposed to put a different number of counters on each to signify which is which.

[Norm4eva]

Yeah, there's a host of reasons why Morph guys work the way they do.  One of which is they all look the same face-down, save the counter to mark which is which (preventing the other player from 'shuffling' their face-down creatures around to further aid confusion).  The fact that you'd introduce face-down 'morph' cards which aren't 2/2s already punches the Morph mechanic in the face; you're supposed to wonder whether that Grey Ogre is really a Whipcorder or an Exalted Angel (or some other surprise bad card), and putting lands into play face-down already diminishes the mechanic by removing a degree of mystery.  It's not like landcycling since you're going from "pay cost, get random card" to "pay cost, get certain card".
Also, there's already a Morph land on the Master List called Seedling.

[jro]

They are distinguished from morphs in practice by virtue of the fact that most people keep their lands separate from their other permanents.  Also, the player controlling them can always look at their face down cards to see what they are in case they lose track (just like with multiple regular morphs).

That's not really enough. They need to be truly distinguishable. Even the morph rules say you're supposed to put a different number of counters on each to signify which is which.

What the morph rules say is:

Code:

504.4. If you control multiple face-down spells on the stack or face-down permanents in play, you must 
ensure at all times that your face-down spells and permanents can be easily differentiated from each 
other. This includes, but is not limited to, knowing the order spells were played, the order that face- 
down permanents came into play, which creature attacked last turn, and any other differences 
between face-down spells or permanents. Common methods for distinguishing between face-down 
objects include using counters or dice to mark the different objects, or clearly placing those objects 
in order on the table. 

So you're supposed to insure that they are "easily differentiated", you aren't necessarily supposed to use counters.  If the problem is distinguishing these from regular morphs, again, I don't think that's a serious problem.  You play them as lands, you place them by your lands, and you are no more allowed to confuse landmorphs with your morphs than you are allowed to confuse your morphs with each other.  If the problem is distinguishing these from each other, then that problem can be solved the same way that it's solved for regular morphs, i.e. by whatever method the players are comfortable with, be it table placement, counters, etc.

Yeah, there's a host of reasons why Morph guys work the way they do.  One of which is they all look the same face-down, save the counter to mark which is which (preventing the other player from 'shuffling' their face-down creatures around to further aid confusion).  The fact that you'd introduce face-down 'morph' cards which aren't 2/2s already punches the Morph mechanic in the face; you're supposed to wonder whether that Grey Ogre is really a Whipcorder or an Exalted Angel (or some other surprise bad card), and putting lands into play face-down already diminishes the mechanic by removing a degree of mystery.  It's not like landcycling since you're going from "pay cost, get random card" to "pay cost, get certain card".
Also, there's already a Morph land on the Master List called Seedling.

I totally don't understand your point.  Nothing that these cards do changes how regular morphs work.  What "degree of mystery" is being lost?  Your Grey Ogre might still be an Exalted Angel.  Your face down land is never going to be an Exalted Angel.  It might be a creature, or it might be a different land, or maybe something else, but it isn't a 2/2 creature and it won't ever morph into a "normal morph" creature.  Are you saying that having more than one type of face down permanent diminishes the novelty or Morph or something like that?  I won't disagree, but I don't see why that's a problem, since mechanically nothing about this mechanic changes how original Morph works.  And I also don't understand your comparison with landcycling, because landcycling is exactly "pay cost, get certain card", namely whatever land type you're searching for.  The only thing this mechanic has in common with cycling (or landcycling) is that it can help smooth out draws (just as morph can).

And one last point: these are NOT just lands with the Morph ability, like Seedling.  I checked the master list to see if someone had done this and I couldn't find anything like it.  These cards are played face-down as lands, not creatures.  Some of them (not all or even the majority of the ones I suggested) can become creatures when they are turned face up.

[Jacob Orlove]

Having two identical face-down cards that are not the same is pretty much unworkable. Since Morphs exist, face down permanents are stuck being 2/2 creatures.

You'd be better off using the flip mechanic, if you really want lands that turn into anything else.

[Norm4eva]

Consider the theoretical situation that a player is playing with Morph guys, Morph lands, and Illusionary Mask.  Do you really want to be staring at multiple face-down cards with different functions, different p/t and so on and so forth?  It's the "multiple kinds of counters" thing.  How many different kinds of face-down permanents are acceptable?  Why not face-down Enchantments and Equipment cards, too?
Simply arranging your cards proper won't do, especially considering that this is another type of textless permanent.  Players tend to shift their land around when they play a spell with a casting cost that doesn't fit into the way their land is arranged; ever put two Islands together to signal a Counterspell (even when you don't have one)?  Unlike creatures, which tend to stay put, lands get tossed around and regrouped constantly.  Whether or not it's a bad habit, it happens - R&D just listed a mechanic where the 'bad habits' turned into the actual execution; Suspend creatures have haste because playtesters kept swinging with them the turn they came into play.  How do you make your mechanic fit in to this concept?
You WILL need a grip of dice and counters to differentiate Landmorphs from regular Morphs, in addition to clearly marking which order they came into play.  Even if you're just marking the order that facedown creatures and lands come into play and arranging them appropriately, and then (fairly safely) assuming you don't miss a landdrop and put two morph creatures into play by turn 4, that's as many as six different counters/dice/etc.
For what it's worth I appreciate the underlying possibilities of having a grip of spells that can be played as lands.  In fact, it's how most of the other TCGs get around some of Magic's defining flaws (landscrew and landflood).  I just think that the presence of a certain kind of face-down permanent obviates having different kinds in play.

[jro]

I would argue that the number of acceptable face down types of permanents is greater than two.  In fact, if Magic is going to exist for another few decades, I don't see how it would be possible to not find some other use for turning cards face down.  There is no reason that this mechanic has to exist in a block (or even an Extended format) with regular Morph.  Sure, someone might make a casual deck using Illusionary Mask, Morphs, and Landmorphs just to be annoying, but that seems far from the most annoying thing one can do in a casual deck.  When someone can infinite Shahrazad, who cares if their face down dude is an 0/1 or a 2/2?

I think players are creative enough that they will find a way to keep track of the order their lands came into play even with all the rearranging and such that typically takes place.  I don't think this is an issue that can be solved by abstract argument, but would require somebody actually trying to play with the mechanic and seeing what they do.

And I will make the point again that you are not required to use counters to mark when morphs came into play.  That's just not what the rules say.  But even supposing that it was necessary (in a practical sense), I still don't see why these would ever be confused with regular morphs.  "Oh whoops, sorry for attacking, that's actually a land not a 2/2?"  That's just not going to happen.  Players know what cards they've put on the board, and they know where they put them.  It's not like you can refuse to tell someone if they ask you whether your face down card is a Morph or a Landmorph, and it's not like you'd have any reason not to look if you didn't remember.

As for using this effect with flip lands, flip lands have their own set of problems, as was discussed in the recent "Alternating lands" thread.  One of the reasons I was thinking of these was to find a way to implement the idea of lands that could change.  Maybe flipping is better for this use, since these are probably only going to change once, although I still like the "surprise" factor that playing them face down has, as well as the fact that they all start off "neutral", whereas flip lands could start off as anything. (Although maybe that's more interesting.)

[Anusien]

I don't think the issue is so much you knowing what permanants you control are, so much as your opponents.  If I have a row of creatures, a row of morphs, a row of land morphs and a row of lands, it's going to get confusing which are : and which are : 2

Edit: what about if you hacked it into morph?  Something like:

Blinkmoth Yard
Land
: Add to your mana pool
: Flip Blinkmoth Yard.
Morph