Good land

[Guardian]

Pangaea
Basic Legendary land
When Pangaea comes into play, choose a basic land type.
T: Add one mana of the chosen land type color to your mana pool.
Quote

On the old TMD, there was an attempt by me to come up with such a land, but the wording and everything was so messy that the idea was scrapped. The idea behind this card is before the world was as we know it, there was a huge supercontinent that eventually divided into the continents. So a continent as huge as this bound to have any kind of mountain, swamp and so on.

I want it to be immune to non basic hate, but it becomes really powerful then, so making it legendary makes sense too as I doubt there were two Pangaea at any moment. I wanted to make it undestructible, but then it would be really too powerful. Also, I made it so it can't be fetched.

As for the quote, I don't know if we're allowed religious stuff (just like Arabian Nights), because the Genesis would be a great place to fetch a quote.

Discuss.


Current wording:

Pangaea
Basic Land
Counts as a plains, island, swamp, mountain and forest.
If you control a card named Pangaea, you may not play another card named Pangaea. If an effect causes you to control more than on Pangaea, sacrifice all Pangaea you control.
Quote

Wording: Jebus
Wording: Ephraim
New version: Me

[Shadow-Walker]

How about:
Pangaea
Land
When Pangaea comes into play, choose a basic land type.  Pangaea becomes a basic land of the chosen type and gains the type legendary.

I think that wording is better, as for card balance im not sure at the moment.

[Matt]

There's no such thing as a land type's color. It's not even a meaningful phrase - it's like asking what color science is. It's not even a thing that could HAVE a color. Even the lands themselves are colorless, but that at least is an answer to the question, "What color is this?"

The wording you probably want is:

When Pangaea comes into play, choose a color.
T: Add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool.

[xrizzo]

...so whoever draws their pangaea first gets a free basic land of their choice?

What if you could make it legendary for each person, but not globally?

[Guardian]

Matt:
You got the idea about how I want it to work, but I absolutely want it to become the chosen land type.

xrizzo:
Great idea. How about the following wording.

Pangaea
Basic Land
You may only control one Pangaea. If you control more than one, destroy all Pangaea you control.
When Pangaea comesn into play, choose a basic land type. Pangaea becomes the chosen land type. It's still named Pangaea and retain all it'a abilities.

That way, it prevent abuse, but the wording became messy.

[Jebus]

Let me take a crack at this

Pangea
Basic Land
As ~this comes into play, name a basic land type.  ~this~ comes into play with that basic land type.
Whenever you control more than one card named Pangea, sacrifice ~this~.

[Ephraim]

That has a slightly different effect than the "Legendary" tag. If something is Legendary, the second copy that comes into play is destroyed and the first remains. With that wording, it looks both lands are destroyed. It would make the land marginally more useful if the card was designed to let you put a second one into play and to sacrifice the first one. Would this wording do the trick:

Whenever you play another card named Pangea, sacrifice ~this~.

[Jebus]

That has a slightly different effect than the "Legendary" tag. If something is Legendary, the second copy that comes into play is destroyed and the first remains. With that wording, it looks both lands are destroyed. It would make the land marginally more useful if the card was designed to let you put a second one into play and to sacrifice the first one. Would this wording do the trick:

Whenever you play another card named Pangea, sacrifice ~this~.

I was merely going by the functionality the poster was trying to go for.  He seemed to indicate he wanted all to go if another was played.

[Guardian]

Jebus and Ephraim:
You both got it right. The first wording by Jebus was what I wanted to do, but Ephraim idea is a little less punishing and allows for some nice tricks. I like it better than mine.

[Jebus]

Jebus and Ephraim:
You both got it right. The first wording by Jebus was what I wanted to do, but Ephraim idea is a little less punishing and allows for some nice tricks. I like it better than mine.

If that's what you'd like to do now, then Ephraim's trigger should work for you.

[gashole]

I had a take on a similar idea:

Land Before Time
Legendary Land

T: Add 1 to your mana pool.

When ~this~ is put into a graveyard from play, search your library for a basic land of each basic land type and put them into play. Then shuffle your library.

I guess they're not so similar mechanically, but in flavor.

Edit: ooh, I thought I was being smart about mana symbols, but phpBB is smarter.

[Ephraim]

If you want to remove mana symbols/tap symbols from a post, click the 'Disable Smilies' box below where you type. That's how I do all of my current wording posts. It means I get to keep the original wording post all shiny-looking.

[Guardian]

I would really like it if someone could come up with a flavour text as I suck big time with those. For the wording and functionnality, this seem to be OK. Still have to wait for Matt or Jacob.
That's the only thing keepeing me from starting the clock.

[The Atog Lord]

By the current wording, I believe that you would sacrifice this card whenever you played it.

Now, even if that issue were fixed, there would remain the matter of how powerful this card is. There is a drawback to playing more than one of this card. Yet, imagine having only a single copy of this card in your deck. That one card would in every way be better than any other basic land. For example, if a red/green deck ran a single copy of this card, it would be in every way better than a forest or a mountain, without even the standard drawback of being nonbasic.

[Kowal]

I don't see a problem with that.  Lots of stuff is realistically better than forests or mountains.  However, you could fix that by making Pangaea come in tapped.

[Ephraim]

I think that the Atog Lord is correct. The current wording destroys the card, itself, when it comes into play. Whatever happened to the word 'another' in there? It needs to be:

Whenever you play another card named Pangea, sacrifice ~this~.

I'm not really sure that the card qualifies as strictly better, right now. Having just one copy of the card in your deck is a fairly limiting circumstance. Multiples have a lot of potential to generate dead draws - about the best you can do with an unwanted copy of Pangea is to tap the first one for mana, play the second on (sacrifice the first) and declare the same basic land type as the first, then produce a second mana of that colour, in which situation a basic land would be better. Also, this card is pointless in monochrome decks.

[Jebus]

You don't need to change it.  It won't be in play when you play itself, so it won't trigger.

[Ephraim]

Good call. Sorry for putting my foot in my mouth in public.  

[The Atog Lord]

Jebus, thanks for clearing that up.

[Jacob Orlove]

This is so much better than a regular basic land, and it barely has a drawback. Make it go away if you play ANY other land (a la city of traitors) and it should be closer to printable. As it is, it's much better than a fetchland in T2.

[Guardian]

I know this thread did not get a response in a long time, but I was thinking about how to make this card correct. Here's a suggestion.

Pangaea
Basic Land
Counts as a plains, island, swamp, mountain and forest.
If you control a card named Pangaea, you may not play another card named Pangaea. If an effect causes you to control more than on Pangaea, sacrifice all Pangaea you control.

[Jebus]

I know this thread did not get a response in a long time, but I was thinking about how to make this card correct. Here's a suggestion.

Pangaea
Basic Land
Counts as a plains, island, swamp, mountain and forest.
If you control a card named Pangaea, you may not play another card named Pangaea. If an effect causes you to control more than on Pangaea, sacrifice both.

Wow.  Attack of the old school templates.  :shock:

[Guardian]

Jebus, if you know how to make the wording messy, I would be glad if you could lend a hand!

[Jebus]

Try...

Pangaea
Basic Land - Plains Island Swamp Mountain Forest.
Cards named Pangaea can't be played.
Whenever you control two or more cards named Pangaea, sacrifice Pangaea.

[Jacob Orlove]

If this counts as all 5 basic lands types, then it can tap for any color of mana, painlessly. That's just way too good. Especially if it's still a basic land.

[Jebus]

If this counts as all 5 basic lands types, then it can tap for any color of mana, painlessly. That's just way too good. Especially if it's still a basic land.

Agreed.

Of course I don't really like the idea of new basic lands either.

[Guardian]

Jebus:
Your wording makes it like the first player to play the card prevents other players to play it. I want all player to control only one at a given time. I just don't want a single player to have more than two in play, even for a fraction of a second so they can tap it for mana and then sacrifice it.

Jacob:
I know it is really good, but if you can only control one at a time and each other Pangaea you draw is a dead draw, I believe it lessen the power level of the card. I for sure would'nt play more than four in a deck and maybe even less than that. This is only to get around color screw.

[Jebus]

Jebus:
Your wording makes it like the first player to play the card prevents other players to play it. I want all player to control only one at a given time. I just don't want a single player to have more than two in play, even for a fraction of a second so they can tap it for mana and then sacrifice it.

Should be "You cannot play..." then.

However, I think you're being too ambitious with this card.  I may be able to come up with proper wording for what you want to do, but it looks like you're trying to do too much with one card.

[Jacob Orlove]

The drawback is only relevant if you draw two, so, while it might limit the number of copies that you play to about 4, you'd get the same number played if it simply was a nonbasic land--at least then it would be vulnerable to NBLH.

This needs a real drawback, and a serious one, or it is just going to be unfairly good.

[Guardian]

Then this is getting nowhere. Could a mod please lock this thread. The version I like can't see print as most of you say it's too powerful. And I don't know which drawback I could put on the card. I thought that by limiting it to one copy in play per player was fair enough but it does not seems so.
Thanks for your time.