My version of a "fixed' dual land

[Reverend Love]

My idea is for a cycle of allied colored dual lands. The template would read something like this:

UB Land
When UB Land comes into play search your library for an island and a swamp. Remove them from the game, or sacrifice UB Land.

Tap: Add either U or B to your mana pool.

The card would certainly be a rare. I think removing both required lands from your deck subtly balances out the immediate gains. Your screwing your mid to long term mana production for immediate gains.

Think if you held a hand with 3 lands, one being the one just mentioned. Playing it first turn would certainly trim your manabase, and decrease your chances of drawing future lands.

Requiring the player to search and remove BOTH lands keeps mono colored aggressive decks from running them simply to trim mana from their library.

OR WoTC could just reprint the old dual lands...geeze I would love that!

 

[Spiderman]

I don't know, I think thinning out your library is actually a bonus, not a penalty. That's why Thawing Glaciers or Land Tax is so strong. But I'm not sure how to fix it...

 

[Oversoul]

I am not sure how good these things could be. It seems that some combo decks would be able to use them very well, although probably not as well as dual lands...

 

[DÛke]

It's a very strange version, one with subtle disadvantages, but also subtle advantages. Like mentioned by Spiderman, removing the lands from your library, thinning out your deck, is desireable in some cases, I would say in more cases than when it is not. Yes, it would hinder long term mana development, though I doubt it would hinder it enough to warrant that it is a "fixed" version.

Another version...

UBexampler
Nonbasic Land
Tap: add 1 to your mana pool.
Tap: add U to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you don't control an Island.
Tap: add B to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you don't control a Swamp.

So the first 1 or 2 turns, it is rather flexible but quickly becomes useless as your mana base develops, and when you do have all the mana, it becomes a generic land. We can even make a Legendary land to restrict it should multiple copies become problematic.

What do you think?

 

[Istanbul]

Rev, your version needs to be reworded.

Search your library for an Island and a Swamp. Yep, there they are. Now I can sacrifice my UB Land and keep them in my library, or not and remove them from the game...what? Your version doesn't actually have you do anything other than see the lands in your library.

Here's what I THINK you mean:

UB Land
Land
When UB Land comes into play, search your library for a basic Island and a basic Swamp, then choose one: put both cards into your hand and sacrifice UB land; or remove both cards from the game.
T: Add U or B to your mana pool.

And please, PLEASE don't take rarity into design when creating Magic cards. The rule of thumb I keep in mind is, always assume that all players can get four copies of your card, whether it's common, uncommon, or rare. Which ultimately makes its rarity irrelevant.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

The original suggestion would be very abusive in a deck that runs on 3 land. Just think of the mono-red decks that run the Onslaught sac-lands just to burn cards out of their deck.

 

[Oversoul]

DÛke's version is interesting. It can't really be utilized in decks with dual lands. It is also bad with basics. Other than that it acts as a dual land itself. To me, that raises some questions...

What mark are we shooting for here? Are we saying that because the dual lands are too good, these will replace them? In formats that already have dual lands, no one would bother using DÛke's lands, and in most other formats it would be difficult to make them good.

Testing would reveal the truth, I am only estimating. But I think that what Spiderman said about Rev's lands would hold true. Fetchlands already see extensive use thanks to the deckthinning and versatility they provide. His lands would only do more of the same, and combo would love them...

And some way to bounce it in and out of play would make it a sort of Mana Severance engine, which would be funny...

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

I don't really think the Duals need to be fixed. Reprinted maybe but not fixed. Making it that easy to go multicolor adds chaos and variety to the game, and there's nothing I like more in this game than chaos and variety.

The problem with printing a dual land which approaches the original is that a 2-mana land that is too good would work too well and in the Vintage and Legacy formats would cause too much chaos to those who like things how they are now. They might be great for Standard and those of us who buy new cards and can't afford what the Duals are going for these days, but they would cause a lot of damage to the old formats. It'd be easier to just put the originals back out.

That being said, I like variety and the ability to build the greatest variety of decks. Multicolored lands have more ability to add variety to the game than anything else in Magic.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I think its going to be very difficult to make a "fixed" dual land. WotC has tryed several times within the last few years and the one's they have given us are ok.


About the only thing I can think of on par this the original Duals would be a variant of Ice Age pain-lands.

Inland Port
Non-basic land
Tap: add U or W to your mana pool, Inland Port deals 1 damage to you.

All I'm doing is taking away the ability to get a colorless mana from the land.

 

[Reverend Love]

Istanbul

How about this:

UB Land
When UB Land comes into play search your library for an island and a swamp, remove them from the game or sacrifice UB Land.

Tap: Add either U or B to your mana pool.

It's comes into play ability goes on the stack. And regardless of you sacking it or not it's going to resolve unless stifled, time stopped or whatever. I added a coma in there to make it one continuous reading. So even if you do sac it while it's CIP ability is on the stack, you’re still going to have to search your library and remove land, or sac your land, which by then you don’t care. I’m not to sure how getting around it’s CIP ability by sac’ing it is all that great.

Spiderman

This land is worlds apart from thawing glaciers. Thawing allowed you to essentially bounce one land to search for another, at the cost of tempo. This requires you to remove from your deck 2 land for 1. Think about if you played two of these things back to back. You just removed 4 land from your deck. It's basically a land that imprints two land form your deck. Yea thinning your deck certainly has advantages. But this has a slight disadvantage bagged with it. In Goblin Bidding the player could probably give to hoots. But W/U Control, which contained a voracious mana appetite, would be none to pleased. Some decks would no doubt make use of it’s “disadvantage”. However it would be playable and strong in most if not all decks. W/U control might play 2 maindeck while Bidding would maindeck 4. Us casual moe-moes would have access to a great land to construct goofy decks with.

Duke

I think you made a really interesting card there. I like how it's conditional. So if you've got something that requires UU and you've already got an Island in play your SOL. I could see this being maybe too strong when combined with cards like Glimmervoid, Pain Lands, and others which don't count as basic lands unlike real duals. They can still provide colored mana but won't meet your condition.

TheCasualOblivion

Taiga
Plateau
Scrubland
Tropical Island
Volcanic Island
Savannah
Tundra
Underground Sea
Badlands
Bayou

Underground River
Sulferous Spring
Adakar Wastes
Brushland
Karpulsan Forest
Battlefield Forge
Llanowar Wastes
Caves of Koilos
Shivan Reef
Yavimaya Coast

Wooded Foothills
Polluted Delta
Bloodstained Mire
Flooded Strand
Windswept Heath

City of Brass
Grand Coliseum
Gemstone Mine
Reflecting Pool
Glimmervoid
Thran Quarry

Mox Emerald
Mox Sapphire
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Diamond
Lion's Eye Diamond
Black Lotus
Lotus Petal

Yea, because all hell would break loose in Type 1 if it had access to a better manabase.

 

[Spiderman]

I was just thinking of thinning out cards to begin with, I wasn't trying to do a direct comparison

But though I'm not familiar with the specific deck you mention, I honestly can't see a downside to the card. In your example, you're getting rid of 4 lands from your deck in what probably already has a 24-26 land count (if it's as mana intensive as you say). This just ensures you draw "good cards" and not dead ones like land.

I'm just saying these are my thoughts; obviously play-testing would tell what's correct or not I just think the penalty should be immediate; such as discard the lands from your hand (thus really stunting your mana development) or sac ones already in play (probably too much like existing cards though).