Colorless "basics" (in FRF?)
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Nov. 20, 2014, 6:49 a.m. by RussischerZar
I recently read in an article (I believe it was a Commander article on dailymtg) that they're going to fix the colorless basic land issue (for colorless generals) in the near future, possibly FRF. It was more of a side-note but I'm wondering why no one has done any speculations about it yet.
So what I'm imagining is something like:
Colorless Land Name
: Add 
to your mana pool.
A deck can have any number of cards named ~.
And then some minor effect like ETB gain 1 life.
What do you think?
RussischerZar says... #3
It won't be a basic land. It will just be a land that you can use in a deck without having the 4-of restriction. I'll try to find the article.
November 20, 2014 7:08 a.m.
derKochXXL says... #4
Ah ok. I see. A Shadowborn Apostle land? That makes a lot more sense to me.
November 20, 2014 7:13 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #5
I think that there will be no minor effect on them. Having a minor effect would greatly add power to colorless decks in EDH (the only place that colorless basics would matter). While gaining 1 life isn't great and the restriction to only make colorless is strong enough to warrant needing a minor upside in any other deck; a colorless deck basically having a 5-10 point higher starting life total is not insignificant.
I believe that I read they are not making a 6th true "Basic" land but I think that would be a good idea personally. As it stands colorless decks get way more hosed than any other deck by From the Ashes and Ruination. So I would love to see
Clay Pit
Basic Land - Pit: Add to your mana pool.
But I don't think that is what is happening.
November 20, 2014 7:16 a.m.
RussischerZar says... #6
So it was actually anounced during a PAX Australia by Aaron Forsythe.
Here's the speculation thread on mtgsalvation.
What I think is that if it is a land without any added effect, it would be too niche and unplayable in any format other than EDH. Also, if it's a basic, they kind of have to provide it with stuff like basic land boxes, thus warping a lot of their products. Having it non basic but instead with the 'a deck can have any number'-clause makes a lot more sense to me.
November 20, 2014 8:05 a.m.
Couldn't it have the basic land type but without the subtype, so it's line would just say "Basic Land." That shouldn't break anything.
I'm interested to see what they have planned for FRF.
November 20, 2014 8:49 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #8
I doubt they'll do something in a core expansion set that fixes a perceived problem with Commander.
November 20, 2014 9:30 a.m.
Colorless Land
Land
~ counts as a basic land in addition to its other types.
: Add to your mana pool.
Whenever ~ enters the battlefield, gain 1 life.
Wouldn't be a true basic, would have a small upside (lifegain) to counter the fact that it's open to more land hate.
November 20, 2014 10:53 a.m.
Hickorysbane says... #10
I feel like I'm missing something obvious here...but why can't a colorless EDH deck just run whatever basics they have laying around? Because of your color identity wouldn't they tap for colorless anyways? The way I understand it you could TRY to tap your Mountain for 
but just get anyways.....so why does it matter?
November 20, 2014 11:16 a.m.
SimicPower says... #11
You cannot play lands in commander with a basic land type that does not match your commander's color identity. (For example, off color shocklands). I hope they make it basic so it can be tutorable with Burnished Hart.
November 20, 2014 11:43 a.m.
I would love to see a colorless basic! My Karn deck makes it very difficult against all the land hate against non-basic lands and those pesky destroy target permanent search for a basic land, which i just sit there and shuffle my library and cry inside a little.
But i do feel that it wouldnt happen for the very reason of colorless decks dont need a basic colorless land, you absolutely need functioning lands. Now a basic colorless land that has a second function would be nice.
November 20, 2014 12:21 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #13
As to why you cannot run basics outside of color identity:
All basic lands "have" text that reads "tap: add (color) to your mana pool."
Because the "color" part, the basic land has a color identity, and if that doesn't match your commanders, you can't play it.
November 20, 2014 1:01 p.m.
Lands are color less permanents.. they don't have to match your commander's identity. If you tried to produce a mana outside the identity it would a colorless mana.
November 20, 2014 11:09 p.m.
Zuckfat: Lands may be colorless, but they do still have a color identity based on the color(s) of mana they produce or any ability costs hey may have. You can't play a Mountain in a mono blue EDH deck or Grove of the Guardian in a Rakos deck.
November 20, 2014 11:19 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #16
Lands are colorless, yes. However, color identity is completely different.
A cards color identity is determined by all the mana symbols on a card. On basic lands, since they have the implied line "tap: add (color) to your mana pool", they have the color identity of whatever color they tap for.
November 20, 2014 11:28 p.m.
Basic Land - Spirit LandTap to add one colorless mana
Can it be that simple?
November 22, 2014 1:19 p.m.
jerresette says... #20
I think a colorless land that adds 1 colorless mana to your pool when it ETBs would be cool. So, you could tap that turn and it would have added you 2 on that first turn drop.... It couldn't have the Shadowborn Apostle text, though. And, I'd expect it to be rare or mythic.
November 22, 2014 7:22 p.m.
jerresette says... #22
@vishnargMaybe as a legendary land. That would keep it from being overpowered in standard and modern.
November 23, 2014 12:43 p.m.
selesvyaloverer8 says... #24
even at legendary that would break modern affinity. it is already capable of some insane opens and this would make it just too easy
November 24, 2014 1:01 a.m.
BlastercoolWeird says... #25
also it being legendary wouldn't solve the problem they were trying to fix in the first place of giving colorless commander decks a basic land they can use.
I don't really understand why having a sixth basic land type would be all that much of a problem going forward. Like, yeah they aren't great in non-edh constructed formats without some extra ability sure, you don't have to use them though, and they're unlikely to be used all that much.
November 24, 2014 2:01 p.m.
It could make Tribal Flames hit for 6. It would be a little strange, but really wouldn't change many formats whatsoever.
November 24, 2014 2:17 p.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #27
How would a colorless basic "break" affinity? I mean, that's like saying affinity is infinitely better because all of the sudden they run a bunch of forests. What does affinity gain from colorless basic lands that they don't have already with normal basics? I mean, you can at even fetchland for normal basics, but not colorless ones.
November 24, 2014 4:24 p.m.
I would make it a Basic land with no basic land type... at least while it is not on the battlefield.
Name: "New Basic Land"
Basic Land
When "New Basic Land" enters the battlefield, empty your mana pool and choose a basic land type. All "New Basic Land" you control are the chosen basic land type.
This allows it to be played in any deck, as any color, but since your man a pool is emptied when it enters the battlefield, you can only get one color out of them at a time... not floating green, then changing them to Islands and getting Blue... etc.
November 24, 2014 4:33 p.m.
That's way to complicated. Having a new basic land that produces colorless is just fine.
November 24, 2014 7:29 p.m.
RussischerZar says... #30
I still feel it won't actually be a basic land for marketing and distribution reasons.
Maybe it will be something weird like
Timeless Barrens
Land: Add to your mana pool.
, : Search your library for a card named Time Capsule and put it in your hand.
A deck can have any number of cards named Timeless Barrens.
and then
Time Capsule 
Artifact
Indestructible: Add to your mana pool.
Permanents you control with the name Timeless Barrens are indestructible.
November 25, 2014 5:25 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #31
I really don't see the need to give it additional abilities, beyond 'Tap for '
People who need to play it (Domain players, Colourless EDH players, others) will still want to play it. Other people wouldn't need to play it regardless.
November 25, 2014 7:29 a.m.
How about:
Timeless Barrens
Basic Land - Barrens
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
November 25, 2014 11:08 a.m.
RussischerZar says... #33
I doubt they'll introduce an actual 6th basic land type.
November 25, 2014 11:12 a.m.
What good is a colorless basic land that isn't basic and cant be searched with something like Burnished Hart or Traveler's Amulet?
I mean, I get that they will run mana rocks but there are only like 6 that aren't ridiculously expensive money wise and not everyone wil have the funds to go get a Grim Monolith for $20+ to run a Karn, Silver Golem casual EDH deck.
Would having a 6th basic land type really be such a big deal?
November 25, 2014 12:02 p.m.
They could easily make it. It doesn't add any new colors or affect standard, modern, or legacy in any way.
November 25, 2014 3:05 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #36
It absolutely affects Modern and Legacy in a number of ways.
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25 That's MaRo's explanantion of why it's tough to make work. (If you scroll down to the mock-up of the basic land, you'll get to a lot of the interactions).
Coalition Victory would become much tougher to use, Dream Thrush becomes a lot more powerful, etc...
November 25, 2014 3:13 p.m.
But nobody runs any of those cards in modern or legacy competitive decks.
November 25, 2014 3:18 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #38
The rules committee has to worry about more than what's being played at the Pro Tours.
November 25, 2014 3:20 p.m.
The answer is really quite simple.
Currently the rules state:
305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words basic land type, its referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability : Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool, even if the text box doesnt actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is 
; for Islands, 
; for Swamps, 
; for Mountains, ; and for Forests, 
. See rule 107.4a. Also see rule 605, Mana Abilities.
Simply add 1 line to the rules...
305.6a A land with they basic supertype which has no basic land type has the intrinsic ability ": Add to your mana pool."
Then they can create a land...
New Land Name
Basic Land
It acts like any other basic land in that you can run as many as you would like...
It does not increase Domain count as it does not have a basic land type...
I can be fetched if you can search for "Any Land", or "Any Basic Land".... but not if the ability says "search for any land with a basic land type."
Note: This also opens the door for cards (in the future) that may be able to strip basic land types... remove the "Forest" land type from a Forest, and you can still tap for ; making for neat interactions without making them overly powerful.
November 25, 2014 3:57 p.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #40
@Rayenous That's quite a simple and elegant answer to the issue! I support it.
November 25, 2014 4:02 p.m.
SimicPower says... #42
@Rayenous I support.
@TheAnnihilator A new colorless basic would not "break" affinity. One that ETBs to add to your mana pool would.
November 25, 2014 10:44 p.m.
JexInfinite says... #43
If it were a basic land, it would say 'Basic Dump' or something, indicating that it follows basic land rules.
November 26, 2014 9:46 a.m.
BlindJoker says... #44
I'm probably missing something here, but what would be the downsides of making basic lands exceptions to the color identity rule in EDH?
November 26, 2014 10:07 a.m.
Ohthenoises says... #46
So instead of Basic Land - Barrens it would just be Basic Land. I like it!
November 26, 2014 10:45 a.m.
Sorry but wouldnt be more simple to modify edh rules to make basic lands have no (or better said) all color identities?? What is the problem with this solution??
November 26, 2014 2:23 p.m.
The problem with that solution is that you could then play things like Wild Nacatl in a mono- deck while still able to get it's advantages... advantages which are intended to be gained when you are playing a multicolour deck... (This is just one example... imagine Tribal Flames for 5 in a mono- deck, or Allied Strategies in mono-)
You would also get a lot of new players assuming that it applies to all land, not just basics... just more confusion.
November 26, 2014 4:18 p.m.
No, just say IF your commander has no color identity, you may play one or more of any one basic land type, it would produce 1 instead of a color.
November 26, 2014 4:34 p.m.
If they did go ahead and make a 6th colourless basic land, which I think would be awesome, I imagine it's land type would be called either 'Aether' or simply 'Plane'.
derKochXXL says... #2
That would be really weird. Would that mean that there'd be 6 basiclandtypes from now on, until forever? What would it be? I mean we already had a lot of factories and mines. Maybe a dessert, but we already had those as well. Dune could be, but I don't know. Seems weird. The basics have become so strongly interwoven with their respective mana and their relationship to each other.
November 20, 2014 7:04 a.m.