Another Basic land

[dandan]

(cool name)
Basic Land - (cool name)
 : Add to your mana pool

Too weak? Helps Domain and protects against Annex, Confiscate and Fellwar stone. Just a crazy idea.

Latest Wording

Highland
Basic Land -- Highland
: Add to your mana pool.
As long as Highland is in play, Highland is a basic land type.
A defense based on reputation is no defense

The name is in reference to Highlander, hopefully it isn't too mountain-like

[Anusien]

Desert.

The infrastructure is already in place.  *ducks*

Fundamentally though, I'm against new basic land types.  That's sort of like another cardinal sin; adding another color.

[Necrologia]

Maro said they considered that exact card (Barry's land) back during invasion block. I don't remember why it wasn't printed, but I think it had something to do with supertypes still being a bit messed up.

Basically it's about on par with something wizards would print. No complaints here.

[GerryMander]

what about making it a Legendary Basic Land?  Is that conceiveable?

[wethepeople]

what about making it a Legendary Basic Land?  Is that conceiveable?

that would be stupid though, because it would limit you to using that color.

[dandan]

Oddly enough making it Legendary might just give you a reason to play it, as you could blow up your land if you played a second one. Seeing as this card is not exactly one for Spike, anything that appeals to Timmy is a plus.

[parallax]

The problem is, this significantly changes the function of cards like Coalition Victory and Gaea's Balance. In particular, it makes the former much worse and the latter significantly better.

I don't see how it protects against Annex, Confiscate or Fellwar Stone at all.

I don't think this card does enough to justify it.

[diopter]

The problem is, this significantly changes the function of cards like Coalition Victory and Gaea's Balance. In particular, it makes the former much worse and the latter significantly better.

I don't see how it protects against Annex, Confiscate or Fellwar Stone at all.

I don't think this card does enough to justify it.

Unless it was added to the list of basic land types (Plains, Island, Mountain, Swamp, Forest), this card wouldn't do anything to Coalition Victory or Gaea's Balance. Consider that the  Snow-Covered lands did not add new basic land types to Magic, only new basic lands.

[parallax]

The problem is, this significantly changes the function of cards like Coalition Victory and Gaea's Balance. In particular, it makes the former much worse and the latter significantly better.

I don't see how it protects against Annex, Confiscate or Fellwar Stone at all.

I don't think this card does enough to justify it.

Unless it was added to the list of basic land types (Plains, Island, Mountain, Swamp, Forest), this card wouldn't do anything to Coalition Victory or Gaea's Balance. Consider that the  Snow-Covered lands did not add new basic land types to Magic, only new basic lands.

Unless it was added to the list of basic land types, this card wouldn't do anything at all.

[dandan]

Good point, I guess I have to make it Legendary to give it some Timmy appeal.

[xycsoscyx]

I don't see the point in making this Legendary?  It's worse than a basic land 'cause it doesn't produce colored mana.   Being Legendary means that you can't have more than one in play, so having too many in a deck is pointlss.  Being a basic land means you want more than four in a deck (which is the point of basic lands), but since it's Legendary, you don't want more, but since it's basic, you do, but it's also Legendary, but then again it's basic.....*boom, head assplode*.

Really, what is the point?

[dandan]

I don't see the point in making this Legendary?  It's worse than a basic land 'cause it doesn't produce colored mana.   Being Legendary means that you can't have more than one in play, so having too many in a deck is pointlss.  Being a basic land means you want more than four in a deck (which is the point of basic lands), but since it's Legendary, you don't want more, but since it's basic, you do, but it's also Legendary, but then again it's basic.....*boom, head assplode*.

Really, what is the point?

The point (apart from the Highlander flavour) is exactly that. On the face of it, the card is worse than a basic land. To a Timmy, it is a card that can blow itself up (with help from a second copy) to reach Threshold, to have fun with Balance, to go in Highlander decks, to use with the CCF card that requires colourless mana, to combat the dreaded Landwalk/Hack deck,   to make a statement that the deck is casual, to avoid bad Karma, to increase the number of Legendary permanents you have in play, to fill out an all-Legendary deck, to be a Basic Land that isn't a Mountain, Swamp, Island, Plains or Forest.....

In short, if you can't see the point of the card, it isn't meant for you.

P.S. Shame that Karakas can't return it to hand

[Nazdakka]

I think this would be more interesting if it weren't legendary. This is similar to Norin the Wary... at first you look at it and ask "What the hell do you do with that card?", and then you start seeing the corner case applications where it might, just possibly, come in handy. I think the best way of making this card feel special is to maximise its simplicity - play up the elegance of the central concept and don't add on the baggage which comes with the Legend supertype. This card really hits the "What the hell???" chord, and that's what this card is really shooting for... initial impact. Legendary status doesn't really add anything to that, and so it should be discarded.

[parallax]

Really, what is the point?

The point (apart from the Highlander flavour) is exactly that. On the face of it, the card is worse than a basic land. To a Timmy, it is a card that can blow itself up (with help from a second copy) to reach Threshold, to have fun with Balance, to go in Highlander decks, to use with the CCF card that requires colourless mana, to combat the dreaded Landwalk/Hack deck,   to make a statement that the deck is casual, to avoid bad Karma, to increase the number of Legendary permanents you have in play, to fill out an all-Legendary deck, to be a Basic Land that isn't a Mountain, Swamp, Island, Plains or Forest.....

In short, if you can't see the point of the card, it isn't meant for you.

P.S. Shame that Karakas can't return it to hand

@Threshold, Balance: This card is strictly worse than fetchlands and Ghost Quarter for those purposes.
@Highlander decks: Any land can go in a highlander deck as a one-of. Why would a highlander deck want a land that only produces one colorless mana?
@colorless mana: Ghost Quarter, pain lands, Tarnished Citadel are all better at producing colorless mana than this is.
@Landwalk/Hack: You're not really getting around the landwalk/hack deck by playing colorless sources. Assuming your deck still needs colored mana, you could use painlands/taplands/any of the millions of lands that produce colored mana other than basics.
@Legendary: There are plenty of better legendary lands out there. The Legends strictly better than basics cycle. The Kamigawa strictly better than basics cycle. Other random Kamigawa lands that do more than produce .
@Basic Land that isn't a Mountain, Swamp, Island, Plains or Forest: Why?

I don't see any reason to play this card over all the other choices available.

Basic allows you to play as many copies as you like. Legendary means you'll never want to run more than four, anyway. These abilities have no synergy.

[Norm4eva]

Doesn't the fact that it says "Legendary Basic Land" tell you that you're talking about a square circle?
They're called basic lands because they're just land.  The Mirage Plains are no more significant in terms of location, historical significance or mana production than those from Mirrodin.  Legendary lands are representations of war zones, ancient academies, grand castles blah blah blah...
If the idea is to make a basic land that taps for colorless, then pretty much by definition Legendary has to go.

[dandan]

I agree that this shouldn't be Legendary. You are correct that Legendary shouldn't be given as an ability but because something IS Legendary. This is not.

In any case, I seem to be in a minority of one in seeking to make a card that is weaker in power level than existing cards simply because such a card doesn't exist.

Please close this thread.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Don't close it, because I'll take it over if Dandan gives up. Doesn't anyone want six basic lands in their domain deck? I loved the idea of Barry's Land that Mark Rosewater has talked about, and I would love to see a sixth basic in our master list.

[Norm4eva]

Yeah, don't close it.  It's not a bad idea; why isn't there a basic land that taps for brown mana, anyway?  Even if it's a small design space, it seems relatively unexplored.
The only real reason not to do it is that, by now, there's so many cards that specifically reference the other 5 basic land types that you'd need to build significant support for the colorless lands into a single set, but once that was done you could just carry on per usual.  Hell, they did it with Equipment, we can do it with these lands.
My singular beef is the weird Legendary status.  Nix it, and it's a perfectly normal card.

[Nazdakka]

I agree that this shouldn't be Legendary. You are correct that Legendary shouldn't be given as an ability but because something IS Legendary. This is not.

In any case, I seem to be in a minority of one in seeking to make a card that is weaker in power level than existing cards simply because such a card doesn't exist.

Please close this thread.

On the contrary, I like this card. So it's not very powerful... who cares? It's a great idea just making it as a 6th basic land, with nothing tacked on.

[dandan]

Should/could Highland be added to the list of Basic Land types?

[parallax]

Should/could Highland be added to the list of Basic Land types?

If Highland isn't added to the list of Basic Land types, does this card do anything?

I think it has to be added, but I don't like the consequences of that.

[Nazdakka]

Should/could Highland be added to the list of Basic Land types?

If Highland isn't added to the list of Basic Land types, does this card do anything?

I think it has to be added, but I don't like the consequences of that.

If it has to be added, I'm not sure we can make this because we'll probably break something. Does anyone have a definite answer?

[Anusien]

You'd need to add it to the list of basic land types.  To be fair, we do this sort of thing all the time, adding to the list of creature types or whatever.  However, I don't like it since it's changing something that hasn't changed since Alpha.

[Nazdakka]

You'd need to add it to the list of basic land types.  To be fair, we do this sort of thing all the time, adding to the list of creature types or whatever.  However, I don't like it since it's changing something that hasn't changed since Alpha.

Why do we need to add it to the list? Is it because it won't have an abilty otherwise or something? - Explain the problem

The only card which I can find from a quick MWS search which will get really wrecked by adding to the list of basic land types is Coalition Victory, and that card gets made quite a lot worse. Other than that, it looks like this card is basically do-able.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Can't we just say that "while highland is in play or in a library, it counts as a basic land"? That would keep us away from blowing the fabric of space time.

[dandan]

Or
"Highland counts as a Basic Land type"
written on the card means that Coalition Victory still works as normal but you get Domain bonuses.
Writing this on the card appears to sidestep the need for any rule changes.

[Anusien]

Everytime you create a new subtype it gets added to the list.  If we printed a Creature - Dan-Dan, it would (re-)add Dan-Dan to the list of creature types.

Now if we make this a new land with the supertype basic and don't add the new "Highland" subtype to the list, none of the functionality you want works.  The rules automatically do this for new cards, but if for some reason the list isn't on there, it's not seen as a valid type for landwalk, you don't get any Domain benefits because it's not a land type, etc.  Technically though, this situation can't happen.  You create a new creature type, it's added.  You create a new land type, it's added.  Otherwise the cards themselves don't really function.  You can make basic lands without basic land types, but without adding a new basic land type, it's sort of worthless.

[parallax]

Making a card with the type line "Basic Land -- Highland" will automatically add "Highland" to the list of land subtypes, but the basic land types are defined in the comprehensive rules to be "Forest", "Swamp", "Plains", "Island", and "Mountain". I don't think printing a basic land with a different subtype will automatically make it a basic land type, because supertypes and subtypes aren't really linked in the rules. The problem is that making a basic land with a subtype that isn't a basic land type would be highly confusing.

There are ways of getting around some of these problems, but I'm not sure if it's possible to make a card that does what you want to do without either (a) messing up a bunch of existing card that depend on basic land types, or (b) making the card very confusing and inelegant.

[Matt]

"Highland counts as a Basic Land type" written on the card

I don't see why this or a variant of it wouldn't work. Like:

DanLand
Land -- Highland
As long as DanLand (this card) is in play, Highland (the type) is a basic land type.

[asmoranomardicodais]

"Highland counts as a Basic Land type" written on the card

I don't see why this or a variant of it wouldn't work. Like:

DanLand
Land -- Highland
As long as DanLand (this card) is in play, Highland (the type) is a basic land type.

The only problem with that wording is that DanLand should be able to be searched for by stuff that gets basic lands. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it.