Are Lands Just Too Boring?
The Kitchen Table forum
Posted on March 1, 2022, 8:02 a.m. by Niko9
Honestly, I was about to buy a few of the new channel lands the other day and I had a bit of a, wow I don't need this, moment. It was easy to get swept up in how good they are because who doesn't want a better than basic land? But at the same time, how often am I really going to use that channel ability?
My question I guess is, do lands need to be designed to do something to be interesting? I really liked MDFC lands because there was the downside of coming in tapped, but the channel lands are basically autoincludes in every single deck, and that's always a little bit of a red flag in my head. Does Wizards think that drawing lands is too slow paced for their game? Or more low-down, it feels like they are trying to phase out basic lands, knowing that they can sell packs every time they make a better than basic.
Honestly, I really like having lands in the deck, but I wanted to see what other people thought. Do you want all of your lands to have another mode, or do you enjoy having the variance in games that comes with, sometimes I desperately need a land and sometimes it's the worst thing I could get?
At this point, I might just be used to the idea of lands being lands and that's how the game plays. But, who knows, we might get to a point in EDH or something where all lands also do something and it makes a whole new play space. I'm a little torn on this, for sure, but a little skeptical too.
Anyways, hope you all have a good one today. I was just thinking about this because of the new Neon lands : )
Omniscience_is_life says... #3
It's easy to imagine the NEO lands as being functionally better basics, but they can't be fetched, they're hit by Blood Moon, and they count toward things like Price of Progress. Plus, in non-singleton formats, you get Strip Mined if you try and play two of the same, which is obviously very damaging.
I definitely find them quite good, but I'm not too worried about basics getting phased out.
March 1, 2022 12:17 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #4
I wish the effects were at least similarly powerful. It's true, it's all free value on cards that you need in your deck, but can draw too many of... But the green Assassin's Trophy knockoff and the red Forbidden Friendship knockoff are comparable on no axis.
They do make bouncelands better, but can't be fetched, not even by a Cultivate. And I agree with Omniscience_is_life that there's plenty of nonbasic land hate in the format. I love seeing people die to their greedy mana bases when I play a Primal Order.
I do fear escalation though. If too many powerful effects like these exist, the answer would be more Stifles, which would push blue ahead of other colors once again.
Giver of Runes can at least protect your creatures from Colorless, if these really run rampant in your meta.
March 1, 2022 12:36 p.m.
I have a friend who runs a majority if not all non-basics in a lot of his decks. Always happy to see him cringe when I play something like Collective Voyage and he just gets to shuffle his library while every player except him puts land on the table.
Looking at some of the cards above makes me want to make a deck of non basic hate... maybe even add something like Helldozer...
March 1, 2022 8:08 p.m.
RNR_Gaming says... #6
I wouldn't think of them as lands. I'd think of them as uncounterable spells that can sometimes be a land. They're super powerful and I highly recommend picking them up.
March 2, 2022 11:42 a.m.
Some really great points here, and it's especially true what you said Omniscience_is_life There are downsides for sure, and I hadn't really considered that too much. Still though, still though maybe : )
And yep, I definitely agree with you plakjekaas on the power level of them being wildly different. It reminds me of the lands in Eldraine where blue was borderline broken and white was a never use. I don't really want an overpowered white land either, but some level of consistency would be kinda wonderful.
March 2, 2022 8:16 p.m.
DemMeowsephs says... #8
In my deck, Double Trouble EDH ⫸PRIMER⫷, I run quite a lot of nonbasics that have no subtype- a lot of fetches as well. While this isn't exactly the kind of situation you seem to be referring to, I have considered many of these new channel lands and ultimately not used them, because I need that subtype. Similarly, many decks may also revolve around the ability to search for a basic land (i.e., Kodama's Reach), and so they may not go to be replacing too many of these basic effects. Nonetheless, I totally agree and would rather shy away from these just 'better' kind of effects. If someone made these points already, I did not look at the other posts and I apologise
Necrosis24 says... #2
In general I tend to use a majority of basic lands mainly for the price point. I try to keep my decks within the $150 range so I can actually afford to buy one periodically. Of course I could just build budget but there are fun interactions and cards you can’t use on a pure budget deck.
In terms of modal lands it is nice to have a few as it makes getting mana swamped less painful at times. Other times they can really help with the deck synergy like Dakmor Salvage, there have been games where the dredge 2 is the only thing keeping my deck running. Or Mystic Sanctuary has got me a Swords to Plowshares to save myself.
Overall to keep the power level lower though I think it is best if WOTC doesn’t go crazy with modal lands because if there were too many auto include land cards like Boseiju, Who Endures I think games will get out of hand. Ironically, I think it will slow games down as it will be easier to have access to removal.
March 1, 2022 10:50 a.m.