Fake Card: Dark Alleyway, Manaless Land.

[Spiderman]

Okay, I have played against Maze of Ith many times. Oasis though? Like I said, some of these lands are pretty bad...

So have I, in fact, wasn't it restricted at one point? Like the Bazaar, it's probably more the exception than the rule though (being a good non-mana land card).

 

[Oversoul]

I'm sure that there are more bad non-mana-producing lands than good ones. I'm also sure that there are more bad mana-producing lands than good ones. Not producing mana isn't necessarily a trait that must be associated with inferiority when it comes to lands.

 

[Spiderman]

So what's the difference between a land and an enchantment, aside from the particular spells that affect each type? What is their basic function?

 

[Oversoul]

You can only play one land per turn and they don't cost mana...

 

[DarthFerret]

So have I, in fact, wasn't it restricted at one point? Like the Bazaar, it's probably more the exception than the rule though (being a good non-mana land card).

Yes it was restricted, the day I found that out, I sold off all but 1 of them. Then when I found out they unrestricted it, I nearly cried!

 

[Spiderman]

You can only play one land per turn and they don't cost mana...

Eh... not what I was thinking, those are still what I think of as "general Magic rule constraints", similar to the types of spells that affect each. But since you're thinking that way...

does that affect how each are designed? Is a land and it's function designed specifically because of the knowledge that generally, without additional help, only one can be cast a turn and it doesn't cost mana?

In other words, is Maze of Ith's ability "reasonable" for a card that can only be played one a turn? Is Oasis? Or would they have been better off being enchantments? Or would they have been too strong, being able to have multiples out in a turn (if you had the mana)?

 

[Force of Will Smith]

I think that alexandria is pretty overpowered... but anyone can use it...
I rate my lands.. in that they should never go over a 4 cc enchantment.. for any color

basically tabernacle of pendrell vale.... so if you have a land that emulates a bedlam..
2RR creatures cant block...
its a little cheesy.. but its allowed..

i think the trick is to either make them universally bad... universally good... or just 4cc enchantments of things people dont play...

like pendrell mists

contemplation as a land: would be ok... 3cc.. still fair game..
Equilibrium as a land: 3cc but would be broken.. simply because people play it.. the base spell is too good..
nether void as a land: universally bad.... would be kinda cheesy.. but allowable..

hell.. the ghetto is basically a invoke prejudice for all spells...


i think the difference between a land and enchantment, as it has been said is the restriction of what can be destroyed, that you can play 1 per turn, and that it's free..

i can't remember the order of "most-easy-to-destroy-permanents"
but i think lands is easier than enchantments..

white: lands (globally) lands (if theyre artifacts) lands ( if theyre creatures)
red: selective land kill, lands (if theyre artifacts) lands (if theyre creatures)
artifacts: can kill lands, usually with a cost however
black: kill lands
green: kill lands, enchantments
blue: can steal lands, but pretty much the most susceptible to them..
lands: even lands can kill lands.

enchantments:

White: no prob
Red: ???
black: ???
green: no prob
blue: ????
artifact: ???
lands: ???

 

[DarthFerret]

As for your assesment of Enchantments....Blue can move them and can steal them. I believe there is even a card in blue that can animate them....

Black Red and Artifact are pretty much screwed...

 

[Oversoul]

In other words, is Maze of Ith's ability "reasonable" for a card that can only be played one a turn? Is Oasis? Or would they have been better off being enchantments? Or would they have been too strong, being able to have multiples out in a turn (if you had the mana)?

I don't know if it's reasonable or not. I'm probably quite unreasonable myself...

But lands that don't tap for mana don't present a flavor issue to me any more than a creature that cannot block or a legendary enchantment. Halls of Mist looks particularly cool (even though it is not particularly useful).

And they certainly don't present a design issue--at least not moreso than any other class of cards...

 

[Spiderman]

I wonder if Rosewater covered this in the past, of why they decide to make an effect a land or enchantment. I'm pretty sure they had a Land theme week at one point... I'd have to look.

Well, since the discussion seems to be winding down and I can't really reply to your last statement since again, you chose not to say WHY they don't present a design issue, I'll just close by saying I agree with Limited and current WOTC's thinking in that if it's a land, it ought to tap for mana in some way. Just like a "creature type" has a p/t by definition, a land should be providing mana as a basic function.

 

[Force of Will Smith]

i'll make an addition to what you said except that instead of tapping for mana, it should have a tap ability...
like maze of ith and heart of yavinmaya...

cards like tabernacle of the pendrell vale i think were created before those ideas were set in stone... only problem with alleyway is that if you tap it for its ability.. that gives you a HUGE advantage.. plus you could wait till your opponent attacks... tap the land all get -2/-0... untap the land, tap the land -4, -0
i might be able to make it produce colorless... not sure if there's space..

 

[Spiderman]

Hmm... maybe some tap ability should be mandatory...

But they're not set in stone by WOTC, just happens to be following the designers at the current time (which could always change in the future, who knows )

 

[Oversoul]

I wonder if Rosewater covered this in the past, of why they decide to make an effect a land or enchantment. I'm pretty sure they had a Land theme week at one point... I'd have to look.

Well, since the discussion seems to be winding down and I can't really reply to your last statement since again, you chose not to say WHY they don't present a design issue, I'll just close by saying I agree with Limited and current WOTC's thinking in that if it's a land, it ought to tap for mana in some way. Just like a "creature type" has a p/t by definition, a land should be providing mana as a basic function.

Do you mean that I didn't give an explanation as to why I don't think it presents a flavor issue?

I don't see how it would present a design issue, since it's been done successfully in the past. Could you explain why lands not tapping for mana WOULD present a design issue?

 

[Spiderman]

I think it all goes back to whether an ability should be a "land" ability or an "enchantment" ability. Which you really didn't answer either; you just said you don't mind the flavor of lands not having some mana ability.

So it all goes back to what makes an ability go on a land card or on an enchantment. Until that's answered (somewhat), that's as far as we're gonna get with this.

 

[Force of Will Smith]

I've got a thought.. Perhaps i've been looking at lands and what they do all wrong...
Enchantments usually effect things globally, and have nothing really tied to them... but i was thinking back..
and almost ALL the lands have a theme, or rather a story that fits with them...

its not really about what they do, but... ehmmm... well listen to this..

Rishadan port-taps land cause well its a port... and i guess the lands are ships.... uhm.. ok next

tabernacle of the pendrell vale - a mysterious place that vanishes or somehow hates creatures

tolarian academy - it's where all the artificer's study, so it makes sense to have a ridiculous sway in art. power

gaea's cradle - its where all creatures flourish..

yavinmaya hollow- its a cute little feeding area, so it makes sense that it regenerates little hippos and such..

in other words.. its not based really on design.. more on story...
so if it makes sense... then its ok..... i think... well, its interesting anyhow

 

[Spiderman]

I think it's kinda related to that... I mean, there's a story background and WOTC uses "Gaea's Cradle" because Gaea is a known place, for instance. So it's kinda theme-related.

On the other hand, I'm sure there's examples of land that aren't necessarily connected to a "theme" but there anyway, but can't come up with any examples offhand...

 

[Force of Will Smith]

I did a lookup of some lands in mtg...
I noticed that most of the uncommon lands are mana based.. and the name doesnt really mean anything.. it just has to correspond with color..

some of the rare lands have an added bonuses, and sometimes mana production to increase the chance that people will play them.


Dust Bowl: taps for mana, kills lands
Halls of Mists: stops creatures
Island of Wak wak: stops fliers
sorrow's path: exchange control of blockers
Thawing Glaciers:retrieves lands for 1 turn, 1 mana, and in place of playing 1 land.
Safe Haven: removes creatures you control from harm
Ice Floe:keep creatures tapped. (flavor based)

pretty much every land with an effect, except for a few like wintermoon mesa makes sense with the card name..

I think if i made alleyway say something like

T: Add B to your mana pool
All creatures gain haste.. it would be ridiculous and the only flavor that makes sense is that it produces black..

it shouldnt be much of an issue though...
the ghetto set gave me a chance to make several lands... i don't ordinarily like doing them..

I have 2 im planning.. one which i may use is "Ghetto Mart"
which will reduce costs of spells/abilities but make creatures lamer overall..

and "Liquor Store" in which all creatures get +1/+0 and whenever a creature is declared as an attacker, you have to flip a coin. If you call it incorrectly, the creature taps and doesnt attack... kinda like.. they think they're a little stronger but drunk.. so when they attack.. theres a chance they wont be able to stand up straight...
see the flavor works..

 

[Oversoul]

I think it all goes back to whether an ability should be a "land" ability or an "enchantment" ability. Which you really didn't answer either; you just said you don't mind the flavor of lands not having some mana ability.

Well, there are numerous ways to look at the flavor angle. Well, flavor is subjective. Some people are going to hate counterspells of any sort, no matter how balanced they are. Some people are going to dislike lands that do not tap for mana, regardless of what the card actually does.

But from a design standpoint, we've seen some lands that do not tap for mana, but are balanced. Thawing Glaciers is one example (although some might argue that it's too good).

So, I see evidence that it is quite possible to design fair land which does not tap for mana. So any complaints would be, I assume, from the area of flavor. And aside from what i have already said (and some of what FoWS has said) I can't really think of anything else. It doesn't present a flavor issue TO ME. Evidently not everyone shares my opinion on that. Oh well.

Is there something that "makes" an ability go on a land or an enchantment? From the flavor aspect, I cannot think of one. From the design aspect, enchantments can cost mana to play, so abilities like the ones on Divine Intervention or Yawgmoth's Agenda should probably not go on lands...

 

[Spiderman]

FoWS: Your ideas for lands in your ghetto set sound reasonable. I mean, they ARE like "locations". I just think they ought to include a mana ability somewhere

But from a design standpoint, we've seen some lands that do not tap for mana, but are balanced. Thawing Glaciers is one example (although some might argue that it's too good).

Balance isn't a problem. The question is whether lands, by nature of the card type itself, should inherently have a mana ability. Like you say here:

So, I see evidence that it is quite possible to design fair land which does not tap for mana. So any complaints would be, I assume, from the area of flavor.

Is there something that "makes" an ability go on a land or an enchantment? From the flavor aspect, I cannot think of one. From the design aspect, enchantments can cost mana to play, so abilities like the ones on Divine Intervention or Yawgmoth's Agenda should probably not go on lands...

Again, WHY does or should having an ability cost mana ala enchantments matter? Why can't they be on lands?

 

[Oversoul]

Again, WHY does or should having an ability cost mana ala enchantments matter? Why can't they be on lands?

Because taking up a land drop is only so much of a drawback, and it can't make up for the mana cost on some enchantments. Day of the Dragons, for example, costs seven mana. Taking up a land drop instead would be more than worth it in most situations...