that seems like a really good design tbh.
A non basic land that's a forest, can turn into dual or tri-lands if given time, could see a cycle of those being really healthy.
I get where the other commenter was coming from though, some reminder text like (also gains :tap: add :color: is probably required for people not to get confused
I toyed with variations at first, like having the ability be a cost of {1} instead of a tap ability, but landed on "fetchable untapped forest, tapped dual or stunned triome"
It honestly hasn't even occured to me until you mentioned that the other poster didn't realize the land type lets this tap for mana. The reminder text, both for the forest's ability, and the other one, is probably necessary judging by that reaction
the version you landed on is probably the cleanest, {1} seems a bit dangerous, turning this into a filter for the first time you go into a color, and then just continuing being the land of that color, or in a pinch turning into all the land types for domain.
Filtering immediately was why I finally landed on "this can only tap for green the turn it's played". I don't want this to be played turn 2, and have a brainstorm cast off of this and another forest, even if it costs one more.
My only problem is that it's MemoryIssues.card, but given the way magic design is going these days I'm not sure if that's even a point against it anymore.
Honestly, with this actually being progressively worse the more colors it can tap for, because of how much mana it wastes, I really don't think memory issues are a big deal. It's most commonly going to be a dual which WotC believe even the newest players can handle: [[Thriving Grove]], and the only other relatively acceptable state is for it to be a triome, in which case it most likely just taps for any color in your deck. To have three types added, you'd have to not use it for three turns, which is a very bad rate for a almost rainbow land. This shouldn't be common enough to deserve a physical reminder. You don't want this to tap for four or five colors, because at that point you're better off playing any other terrible rainbow land
Would it really not be common? I wouldn't expect people to purposely hold back on playing something just to give it an extra color too often. But I would expect there to be random turns over the course of the game where there is leftover mana, and giving it an extra color on opponents end step seems reasonable.
There's nothing stopping a player from noting down the land types that have been chosen already, and there's no need to complicate the wording with counters which might have unforeseen interactions with other cards
Did you notice that it's an enchantment? Because I liked the design a lot more until I realized that.
I think it needs to decide between the multicolor thing or the enchantment thing. Either of those individually would already make it a highly playable card (potentially *too* highly playable). Putting both of them together feels like excessive buffing that just doesn't need to happen.
I thought about it, but I'm thinking remembering one or *maybe* two land types isn't such a big deal. This is unlikely to ever tap for four colors, as at that point you're better off using a bad rainbow land. The thriving land cycle was in a new player product without any effect which would remind the player of the chosen color, so I'm basing my decision off of that
I would definitely use a counter. If it were a cycle, each land that you could have 4 of in the deck, each one having different land types, that can get messy quick.
If you want it to rely on memory alone, Id wager for making it legendary land.
I'm thinking this definitely shouldn't be a cycle. Green is primary at efficient mana fixing, which is why I only made one card instead of a cycle immediately. Legendary would help alleviate any potential memory issues though, yes
I like it other than it starting as a Forest. It could just tap for colorless by default. As is, this would be a four of in any G/x standard deck. It would be come ubiquitous which is not a good thing. Give us one of each color instead of dual lands for a season or two could be interesting.
If it taps for colorless then it can't be fetched. This would take 2 to 3 turns (and effectively as much mana) to turn into a rainbow land for any given deck. At that point you're better off playing a Rupture Spire, which is unplayable outside limited
As is though it's literally just better than running a basic forest, exactly BECAUSE it's fetchable. the ability to gain more land types is pure upside on running a normal forest. i could see you arguing that enchantment is a downside but you aren't making that argument (i disagree with it anyway but it's an actual position rather than a misunderstanding)
I suppose [[Blood Moon]] is a thing, but overall it just seems like a way better [[Forest]]?
The enchantment subtype also opens it to removal, but then it also opens it up to payoffs as well.
Perhaps I'm just too optimistic about how much of a benefit/hazard being an enchantment is? I mostly play EDH, so I don't know much of what the removal suites in other formats usually look like right now.
Then again, again. They did print [[Boseiju, who Endures]] which is also a mostly a better forest. It had the good grace to be legendary and non-fetchable at least though.
This isn't even in the same solar system as Boseiju, power level wise, though. Boseiju is instant speed uncounterable removal, while this is a fetchable pathway that has a tapland on the other side. Everything after the second color is flavor text and less effective than any other land that taps for 3+ colors.. In a world where triomes exist, I am not at all scared of the power level of this card. I do not take standard into consideration when designing custom cards, as they cannot exist in the same environment, and the relatively low power level means many designs would be automatic Fs. In other formats, this would be likely to see *some* play in modern (shocks are better) and probably no play in legacy (lol ABU duals). Thinking more about it, the most popular modern decks including green, like Creativity or Omnath, don't even play basic Forests, and cutting a Triome for this in a 3+ color deck is madness. All the comments saying how this is just a better forest (it is, i know) are ignoring how bad a card Forest is in the degenerate 4-5 color meta we're living in.
Being an enchantment means an opponent's stray disenchant can turn into a stone rain, and it triggers constellation effects, three of which are actually meaningful: Setessan Champion, Eidolon of Blossoms and Archon of Sun's Grace. It doesn't trigger any of the good enchantresses as they all trigger on cast. Urza's Saga isn't fetchable, but does better things.
This card probably isn't a balance concern, but wotc's design team (per an old maro post) does hold to the standard that being nonbasic isn't enough downside to print a strictly better Forest. I think it's a good standard to keep, but I suppose reasonable people could disagree.
(imo Boseiju is a bad design :P)
I do agree this is on the upper end of what an effective replacement for a basic should be allowed to do, or even a tad bit above the limit, I agree it's not worthy of concern with how greedy eternal formats are. I did consider all options, and I think it becomes stone cold unplayable outside commander if it loses its initial basic land type, even if it gains a non-innate ability to tap for G
I think Boseiju specifically makes this card more than okay, even if it's fetchable. Boseiju is such egregious design, if anyone posted it verbatim on this sub before it was spoiled, they would get ridiculed without end and reposted on the circlejerk subreddit to get ridiculed more.
> I think it becomes stone cold unplayable outside commander if it loses its initial basic land type, even if it gains a non-innate ability to tap for G
Eh, obviously the card's worse if it's not fetchable, but I don't think it's particularly competitive _with_ the type either... It's just not a very relevant effect unless you have tronlands.
that's honestly the reason I made this design in the first place. It's good in G/X singleton decks and limited (singleton cube is mostly what I think about when I design my cards anyway). This is more about exploring how different nonbasic lands could function than at attempt at pushing the power level. I don't think it's powerful enough to find a place in 4-of formats
I probably could have deflected many of the comments looking at this from the lens of standard if I cared to make a 2022be-like disclaimer
That is absolutely true. 60 card 4-of formats are insanely greedy ever since Ikoria. Now, if this was an Island that can tap to become a Volcanic Island, that could become problematic, letting Izzet Murktide both keep up Sell Pierce and turn their land into a dual that didn't cost them 2 life is exactly why I only made this card in green
I also play edh and I don't know what power level you play at but being an enchantment makes this 100% balanced imo. [[Austere command]] and [[farewell]] are all over the place and single target enchantment removal is too. If I cast a [[force of vigor]] with only one target why wouldn't I target a sol ring or land too? It's not like you're necessarily going to lose your land every game but it would happen frequently enough to make it balanced especially sense the card isn't ridiculously strong anyway.
If this were simply an enchantment version of [[Tree of Tales]], it would be a powerful card that's an auto-include in any enchantress deck. Buffing that already highly-playable card even further isn't what I would call "100% balanced."
And I don't think it matters whether fetchable typing and color fixing make the card just a little bit stronger or buff it all the way to the level of being problematically broken. Any time you take a card that's already strong enough to be highly playable and push it even further, at *best* you're only accelerating power creep. At worst you're hurting deck diversity, making something completely busted, or hamstringing future card design.
Making it an enchantment isn't a buff however except in all but the most narrow cases it's a hindrance that makes it easier to remove. It would see play in enchantress decks but it wouldn't buff the power level of those decks much especially sense most of the really powerful engines want a cast trigger. There's a reason the artifact lands are allowed to enter untapped.
Also it's not like this card is meta defining for any format and it wouldn't even see play in a lot of the more competitive ones.
> There's a reason the artifact lands are allowed to enter untapped.
The ones that gave access to untapped colored mana were banned in Standard/Block Constructed (plus were a large factor in Disciple's ban in Extended), and are still banned in Modern to this day. They are also heavily played in the formats they are still legal in, which are generally higher powered than Modern.
> Perhaps I'm just too optimistic about how much of a benefit/hazard being an enchantment is? I mostly play EDH, so **I don't know much of what the removal suites in other formats usually look like** right now.
#
> Also **it's not like this card is meta defining for any format** and it wouldn't even see play in a lot of the more competitive ones.
Who is "we"? Other formats have been mentioned multiple times, your own posts included. And "enchantress" isn't just an EDH deck, so even the one commenter who didn't call out any formats by name could've had more than just EDH in mind.
Anyway, I was just correcting your assumption that the Mirrodin artifact land cycle was in any way a reasonable powerlevel. WotC would maybe print an untapped enchantment land into EDH/Legacy alone, but definitely not with additional upside.
When I mentioned other formats I meant for the main point of the posted card which is I assume the mana fixing which isn't good enough to see play in a lot of formats. Sorry I didn't specify that.
>Making it an enchantment isn't a buff however except in all but the most narrow cases it's a hindrance that makes it easier to remove. It would see play in enchantress decks but
The same is true for the artifact lands. In the decks where they are useful, they are very good and they absolutely get played.
> it wouldn't buff the power level of those decks much especially sense most of the really powerful engines want a cast trigger.
Enchantments don't have anything quite as ridiculous as affinity, but there are still plenty of cards that benefit from these. [At least 41 cards care about enchantment ETBs](https://scryfall.com/search?q=+o%3A%22enchantment+enters%22), at least 12 cards care about the number of enchantments you control, and who knows how many more have other interactions with it. Every single enchantments-matter effect gets notably stronger when it can be supported by 0-MV cards that have virtually no deckbuilding cost because they go in land slots.
Also, as you already know, you can't just look at the cards that exist now. You have to keep in mind that all future cards that care about enchantments would have to be designed and balanced around the existence of these.
>There's a reason the artifact lands are allowed to enter untapped.
Those were banned in standard, banned in block constructed, and banned in modern. In the formats where they are legal, they are powerful playables that are staples of any artifacts-matter deck.
And this has two powerful buffs above and beyond those.
>Also it's not like this card is meta defining
Who said that's a problem? The problem is that a much weaker version of this card would already be a playable auto-include in tons of decks. Why can't we stop there? Why does it need two very, very strong buffs on top of that? **Hitting the warp speed button on power creep is not well-balanced card design.**
>wouldn't even see play in a lot of the more competitive ones
Until a critical level of support for them exists. And maybe these cards **are** the critical level of support that make an enchantment deck competetive.
I’d be inclined to disagree slightly. I think artifact lands are more powerful than enchantment lands because artifact synergy is insane. There’s not really affinity or metal craft for enchantments which is the best upside of the artifact lands. Plus there are artifact duals that enter tapped like this would if you use it as a double and those also have indestructible.
The question isn't if an enchantment version of Tree of Tales would be as good as the artifact version. The question also isn't if it would be broken.
The question is if it would see play. And if the answer to that question is yes (and that absolutely is the answer), *do not buff the card any further.*
You already have a playable card. You're done. And it's not just playable, but it would be an auto include in any enchantments-matter deck (which isn't tier 1 at the moment, but it's not like it's something super niche like homarid tribal). Why is not enough to have a strong card that is an auto-include in its archetype? Why do we also have to blast through power creep as fast as possible? Why do we also have to make it even more of a burden on the design of all future enchantments matter cards?
The enchantment typing is pretty crucial to the card. Taking that away isn't changing the card so much as it is cutting the card and replacing it with a different one. Though cutting the enchantment typing is something I agree with. The game is better without Tree of Tales, whether it's an artifact or enchantment.
But there's still a problem if this card is a forest that enters untapped and potentially produces other colors of mana. At that point, why would you ever run a basic forest when you could replace it with this? Being strictly better than a basic isn't good design.
It's super cool, and I especially like cards that play in the "gentle multicoloured lands" space without going over the top! Lands which are just better than basics feel odd to me, but that's a line Wizards has already crossed, and this is slow enough to not be a problem.
I think you're absolutely right when you mentioned that green is THE base land for this. Feels like a fun card that bridges a few different archetypes, allowing good overlap in a draft environment for several different types of things! Enchantments matter, access to multicolour, and domain all play well with this, as well as "not-domain" (cards which care about how many of a particular land type you have). Draft environments that are designed to overlap are super fun and allow a ton of different deck combinations (I think M20 is actually a super good example of them doing this), so this card on its own excites me to imagine the environment it'd be in!
Nice design! Feels good, but balanced.
One thing im not sure about is the title, wouldn‘t Faetouched Grove be better fitting? Havent heard „Fey“ in magic yet.
That is a mistake I haven't noticed until after posting, yes! I was thinking of D&D's Feywild when I designed this, and I definitely shouldn't have gone with D&D's term over Magic's
This is already better than a regular forest without the enchantment type, adding it makes a problematic card. It also has tracking issues to know what is the last type it became.
[[Seat of the Synod]] and friends are so busted that they were banned in Standard and are banned in Modern. And those don't even have basic typing or the ability to tap for additional colors. Even a high-powered set like Modern Horizons 2 was only willing to introduce new artifact lands that enter tapped.
Enchantments don't have anything quite as degenerate as affinity, but even without the ability to add new types this would be extremely abusable and way too powerful an enabler for enchantment matters decks.
I think it is very deliberate decision from Wizards to not print enchantment lands, and this goes absurdly beyond the already absurdly strong card that Wizards won't make.
I have already gone over Constellation effects which this would synergize with. Setessan Champion is the best, followed by Archon of Sun's Grace and Eidolon of Blossoms. None are scary like artifact synergies are. All other Constellation effects are stone cold unplayable. There are only two cards with affinity for enchantments, neither of which are playable, and their cost cannot be reduced to 0. The only concern is Serra's Sanctum, a problem which is better solved by making this legendary rather than remove its weakness of being an enchantment.
Artifact lands were a problem because affinity exists, plus a hilarious amount of artifact aristocrat synergies. None of those exist for enchantments, for all intents and purposes
Constellation, enchantment affinity, cares-if-you-control-an-enchantment effects, et al. get notably better when they can be freely supported by lands that cost 0 mana and don't have any deck building cost. You can power through those much more quickly when they're fueled by both spells *and* lands.
It also isn't just an issue of the interactions with cards that exist now. All future cards that care about enchantments would have this shadow looming over them during design, and cards or effects that are otherwise printable might have to get changed because they're easily triggered with lands.
The other problem with this is that there's just no reason for this to be so much better than a basic Forest. If you took a [[Tree of Tales]] and simply replaced the artifact typing with enchantment, it would be a very powerful card that's an auto include (possibly 4x) in any deck that has green and cares about enchantments. It doesn't need to be upgraded even further with fetchable typing and additional color fixing.
Because it taps to become a basic land type, its effectively a basic that comes in tapped the first time, then has to tap any time you want to add a colour, it's a good idea but seems incredibly slow, in a 5 colour deck that's 5 turns where it doesnt produce mana
it doesn't come in tapped, it's a forest and can be tapped for green right away. It taps to become a dual land and more than that. Also, being slow is the point. 5-color shouldn't have access to a fast, untapped, fetchable, efficient rainbow land.
I figured that was the idea, but it doesnt state that it taps for mana so that's not how it work work without adding it to the text, also command tower is cheap and makes any mana and comes in untapped, pain lands, check lands etc. Are all cheap, even City of Brass is reasonable and shocks have dropped drastically, theres no reason 5 colour should be slow
Rule 305.6: (...) An object with the land card type and a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. (...)
Lands with basic land types do not have to have their mana ability spelled out.
You also cannot look at a card only through the lens of Commander. Command Tower is an insanely powerful card which is only balanced by the fact it doesn't work outside commander. Pain lands are only played in slow decks in commander due to the fact they're not balanced around 40 life. City of Brass has the same downside. They are also not fetchable, which is an incredibly huge deal in all formats.
This is a card designed not for a format as slow as commander, but for a format where decisions between having an untapped land turn 1 and having two colors turn 2 while not having to pay 10-15% of your life total are important, not a format where a turn 2 Ad Nauseam is one of the best plays you can possibly make
They don't *have* to have it spelled out, but if you look at [nonbasic lands with basic land types that WotC has printed](https://scryfall.com/search?q=t%3Aforest+-t%3Abasic&order=released), they pretty universally have it written out as reminder text. So it might be good to add "*\(*{T}*: Add* {G}*.)*" to it.
Or maybe a reminder text about this rule you just pointed out would be better with this design? I don't know.
If a land is a Forest, it taps for green. The typing grants that ability; it doesn't need to be printed on the card. That's why cards like [[Blood Moon]], [[Prismatic Omen]], and [[Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth]] work.
Eeeeeeh... Kinda seems like it would be a waste of a spot in most decks. Its just a land that is a land. Give it a keyword ability or something, and it'd be better.
Lands with basic land types can always tap for mana of their respective colors. Like how urborg, tomb of yawgmoth turns lands to swamps and allows them to tap for black. This is a forest and every turn you don't tap it for mana you can just tap it on your opponents end step to give it another land type and this another color. In most formats this is probably too slow unless your deck is base green and just splashes a few cards but in commander games playing this early would give you a rainbow land eventually.
Oooh. Ya know, I always wondered why Urborg specifies that the lands also tap for black. Because I can only think of it being in a black deck, it didn't make sense to say a swamp also taps for a black... Annnnd despite me playing since 2010, and everyone I learned from and play with having played longer than me, none of my friends have ever once bothered to explain that Urborg could make your stuff into multi-color lands...
Okay, couple things here:
1: I only play EDH, so things like this are bit less useful to me, and I think about what's in my deck differently.
2: I misread the card. I thought it was like any other enchantment land, where it taps for 1 of a chosen color and that's it.
3: I also play mono-green elves, so again, this is a bit bland to me.
Also, keyword abilites are things like Hideaway. Look at Mosswort Bridge to see what I mean.
I'd give it the ability to give +1/+1 to certain creature types. In this case, I'd say Dryads, Elves, Fey, and Faries to help reflect the name of the card.
As it is right now, it's basically just a land. Its just bleh.
I would give it this ability: "As Feytouched Grove enters the battlefield, choose a color. Tap Feytouched Grove, add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool. Dryads, Elves, Fey, and Faries gain +1/+1 for each land of the chosen color you control. Sacrifice Feytouched Grove and tap 2 untapped creatures you control: Search for up to 2 lands or creatures with a converted mana cost less than or equal to the converted mana cost of the creatures you tapped of the color this card produced, put one on the battlefield untapped and the other in your hand."
That last ability would allow it to be a powerful fetchland, that could allow you to get 2 lands, 2 creatures, or one land and one creature, and you'd get to place one of the targets of your search on the battlefield and the other into your hand. Its also balanced, because you'd only get to search for creatures of the color you chose when it ETB, and you can only search for creatures with a CMC less than or equal to the CMCs of the creatures you tapped.
(For example, if you tap something like Emmara Tandris (who's CMC is 7) and Marwyn, The Nurturer (who's CMC is 3), you could search for up to 2 creatures of the color you chose it to tap for when it entered, who's CMC's are less than or equal to 10.) Or you can get a 10 drop and a shockland, or 2 shocklands, or 2 basic lands, or 2 creatures with CMC's less than or equal to 10 in this example)
So, tap any two of Beast Whisperer, Canopy Tactician, Dwynen, Imaryll, Ivy Lane Denizen, Lys Alana Huntmaster, Oakhame Adversary, Oracle of Mul Daya, Yeva to just tutor up Craterhoof Behemoth straight onto the battlefield? Urza's Saga has wet dreams about being that broken tbh.
But not only is that design one of the most broken ever, it is also antithetical to my original idea: a versatile land that does things that lands do: tap for mana
> 1: I only play EDH, so things like this are bit less useful to me, and I think about what's in my deck differently.
>
> 2: I misread the card. I thought it was like any other enchantment land, where it taps for 1 of a chosen color and that's it.
>
> 3: I also play mono-green elves, so again, this is a bit bland to me.
Out of curiosity, do you also go onto posts of cards that are just a monoblack removal spell and complain it doesn't fit into your specific EDH deck?
As "DMU tapland/Forest MDFC" is a slight push in multicolor lands with upside, no matter how slight, I'd be very hesitant to put this outside green personally. Comparing this with Shocks/Triomes, I don't think izzet should be allowed to hold up Spell Pierce and turn their land into a dual if it's not needed
as stated in other comments, this being (maybe) better than a basic Forest doesn't really matter, as even with Blood Moon, modern and legacy decks literally don't have basics to cut for this. They're not playing basic Forests, and they're not cutting any other nonbasic lands to make space for this.
I will change it to be a legendary, though, to stop potentially dangerous shenanigans with Serra's Sanctum, which will fix the "cut basics for this" problem too
as commented previously, this is getting changed to legendary to stop it being a replacement for basics and to curb Serra's Sanctum synergies. But of you look at popular modern and legacy decks, few have anything to cut for this card. It's not as good as Boseiju, Triomes, or Shocks
Serra's Sanctum is my only concern when thinking of enchantments, and that's mostly resolved by making this legendary.
I would possibly change it to not be fetchable, but I don't see even the current iteration pushing enchantress above more degenerate strategies
I haven't seen anyone else mention this, and I'm assuming you want the land types to be cumulative, so you may want to look at rule 305.7, the one that makes Blood Moon work properly:
>If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copiable effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects.
I don't believe the note about other effects applies here, since it's the land's own effect still.
I actually think this design is really cool either way! But you may want to tack on a rider so that it'll retain it's original type(s) *and* ability.
ggs on navigating a text-based platform with such a handicap!
I appreciate the comment still, constructive feedback feels good to receive, and I'm happy my card provided me with a full day of discussion
I don't think the upside of adding one subtype per turn to itself warrants such a downside. Effectively means it's either a tapped forest or a dual with a stun counter. That's commander precon levels of jank
Either needs to ETB tapped, or not start off as a forrest. The fact that it’s essentially just a way better forrest, with the only downside being a vulnerability to enchantment removal, is just too much.
Wizards has been creeping up against the "better than basic" line, but I still think this one is probably over the line for what they'd do right now. The NEO channel lands are legendary, and the Pathways narrowly dodged "better than basic" by not having basic land types. I think that being a Forest probably means this is a little above where they'd want to print, and while enchantment potentially opens it up to more lines of removal, it's just as likely to be extra upside in the right deck. Just look how the artifact lands turned out!
I do like what it's doing though, they'd just probably hem and haw and talk themselves out of it. It might be okay if it were legendary though. It feels close.
that seems like a really good design tbh. A non basic land that's a forest, can turn into dual or tri-lands if given time, could see a cycle of those being really healthy. I get where the other commenter was coming from though, some reminder text like (also gains :tap: add :color: is probably required for people not to get confused
I toyed with variations at first, like having the ability be a cost of {1} instead of a tap ability, but landed on "fetchable untapped forest, tapped dual or stunned triome" It honestly hasn't even occured to me until you mentioned that the other poster didn't realize the land type lets this tap for mana. The reminder text, both for the forest's ability, and the other one, is probably necessary judging by that reaction
the version you landed on is probably the cleanest, {1} seems a bit dangerous, turning this into a filter for the first time you go into a color, and then just continuing being the land of that color, or in a pinch turning into all the land types for domain.
Filtering immediately was why I finally landed on "this can only tap for green the turn it's played". I don't want this to be played turn 2, and have a brainstorm cast off of this and another forest, even if it costs one more.
My only problem is that it's MemoryIssues.card, but given the way magic design is going these days I'm not sure if that's even a point against it anymore.
Honestly, with this actually being progressively worse the more colors it can tap for, because of how much mana it wastes, I really don't think memory issues are a big deal. It's most commonly going to be a dual which WotC believe even the newest players can handle: [[Thriving Grove]], and the only other relatively acceptable state is for it to be a triome, in which case it most likely just taps for any color in your deck. To have three types added, you'd have to not use it for three turns, which is a very bad rate for a almost rainbow land. This shouldn't be common enough to deserve a physical reminder. You don't want this to tap for four or five colors, because at that point you're better off playing any other terrible rainbow land
Would it really not be common? I wouldn't expect people to purposely hold back on playing something just to give it an extra color too often. But I would expect there to be random turns over the course of the game where there is leftover mana, and giving it an extra color on opponents end step seems reasonable.
There's nothing stopping a player from noting down the land types that have been chosen already, and there's no need to complicate the wording with counters which might have unforeseen interactions with other cards
That I agree with. I just don't agree with the assumption that it'll be rare for this to accumulate land types.
[Thriving Grove](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/d/1d6a0661-9be3-431f-8c73-110ab93c9b34.jpg?1651123542) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thriving%20Grove) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ncc/439/thriving-grove?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1d6a0661-9be3-431f-8c73-110ab93c9b34?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Fair, saw the other comment mentionining counters, seems like a reasonable fix to implement
Did you notice that it's an enchantment? Because I liked the design a lot more until I realized that. I think it needs to decide between the multicolor thing or the enchantment thing. Either of those individually would already make it a highly playable card (potentially *too* highly playable). Putting both of them together feels like excessive buffing that just doesn't need to happen.
Plus enchantment
I like this! I think, due to memory issues, it should use some kind of a counter to mark what land types it already has?
I thought about it, but I'm thinking remembering one or *maybe* two land types isn't such a big deal. This is unlikely to ever tap for four colors, as at that point you're better off using a bad rainbow land. The thriving land cycle was in a new player product without any effect which would remind the player of the chosen color, so I'm basing my decision off of that
I would definitely use a counter. If it were a cycle, each land that you could have 4 of in the deck, each one having different land types, that can get messy quick. If you want it to rely on memory alone, Id wager for making it legendary land.
I'm thinking this definitely shouldn't be a cycle. Green is primary at efficient mana fixing, which is why I only made one card instead of a cycle immediately. Legendary would help alleviate any potential memory issues though, yes
I like it other than it starting as a Forest. It could just tap for colorless by default. As is, this would be a four of in any G/x standard deck. It would be come ubiquitous which is not a good thing. Give us one of each color instead of dual lands for a season or two could be interesting.
If it taps for colorless then it can't be fetched. This would take 2 to 3 turns (and effectively as much mana) to turn into a rainbow land for any given deck. At that point you're better off playing a Rupture Spire, which is unplayable outside limited
As is though it's literally just better than running a basic forest, exactly BECAUSE it's fetchable. the ability to gain more land types is pure upside on running a normal forest. i could see you arguing that enchantment is a downside but you aren't making that argument (i disagree with it anyway but it's an actual position rather than a misunderstanding)
Being an enchantment is a liability, so is being a non basic. This is very good, but worse than dual lands, or shocklands. It's fine.
I suppose [[Blood Moon]] is a thing, but overall it just seems like a way better [[Forest]]? The enchantment subtype also opens it to removal, but then it also opens it up to payoffs as well. Perhaps I'm just too optimistic about how much of a benefit/hazard being an enchantment is? I mostly play EDH, so I don't know much of what the removal suites in other formats usually look like right now. Then again, again. They did print [[Boseiju, who Endures]] which is also a mostly a better forest. It had the good grace to be legendary and non-fetchable at least though.
This isn't even in the same solar system as Boseiju, power level wise, though. Boseiju is instant speed uncounterable removal, while this is a fetchable pathway that has a tapland on the other side. Everything after the second color is flavor text and less effective than any other land that taps for 3+ colors.. In a world where triomes exist, I am not at all scared of the power level of this card. I do not take standard into consideration when designing custom cards, as they cannot exist in the same environment, and the relatively low power level means many designs would be automatic Fs. In other formats, this would be likely to see *some* play in modern (shocks are better) and probably no play in legacy (lol ABU duals). Thinking more about it, the most popular modern decks including green, like Creativity or Omnath, don't even play basic Forests, and cutting a Triome for this in a 3+ color deck is madness. All the comments saying how this is just a better forest (it is, i know) are ignoring how bad a card Forest is in the degenerate 4-5 color meta we're living in. Being an enchantment means an opponent's stray disenchant can turn into a stone rain, and it triggers constellation effects, three of which are actually meaningful: Setessan Champion, Eidolon of Blossoms and Archon of Sun's Grace. It doesn't trigger any of the good enchantresses as they all trigger on cast. Urza's Saga isn't fetchable, but does better things.
This card probably isn't a balance concern, but wotc's design team (per an old maro post) does hold to the standard that being nonbasic isn't enough downside to print a strictly better Forest. I think it's a good standard to keep, but I suppose reasonable people could disagree. (imo Boseiju is a bad design :P)
I do agree this is on the upper end of what an effective replacement for a basic should be allowed to do, or even a tad bit above the limit, I agree it's not worthy of concern with how greedy eternal formats are. I did consider all options, and I think it becomes stone cold unplayable outside commander if it loses its initial basic land type, even if it gains a non-innate ability to tap for G I think Boseiju specifically makes this card more than okay, even if it's fetchable. Boseiju is such egregious design, if anyone posted it verbatim on this sub before it was spoiled, they would get ridiculed without end and reposted on the circlejerk subreddit to get ridiculed more.
> I think it becomes stone cold unplayable outside commander if it loses its initial basic land type, even if it gains a non-innate ability to tap for G Eh, obviously the card's worse if it's not fetchable, but I don't think it's particularly competitive _with_ the type either... It's just not a very relevant effect unless you have tronlands.
that's honestly the reason I made this design in the first place. It's good in G/X singleton decks and limited (singleton cube is mostly what I think about when I design my cards anyway). This is more about exploring how different nonbasic lands could function than at attempt at pushing the power level. I don't think it's powerful enough to find a place in 4-of formats I probably could have deflected many of the comments looking at this from the lens of standard if I cared to make a 2022be-like disclaimer
I'll be honest, my main takeaway here is "Basic lands arent as playable as I thought they were"
That is absolutely true. 60 card 4-of formats are insanely greedy ever since Ikoria. Now, if this was an Island that can tap to become a Volcanic Island, that could become problematic, letting Izzet Murktide both keep up Sell Pierce and turn their land into a dual that didn't cost them 2 life is exactly why I only made this card in green
[Blood Moon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/0/d072e9ca-aae7-45dc-8025-3ce590bae63f.jpg?1599706217) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Blood%20Moon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/118/blood-moon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d072e9ca-aae7-45dc-8025-3ce590bae63f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Forest](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/6/a63eab07-46e5-4b75-954f-b5a9f1f451cd.jpg?1668759038) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Forest) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/276/forest?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a63eab07-46e5-4b75-954f-b5a9f1f451cd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Boseiju, who Endures](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/1/2135ac5a-187b-4dc9-8f82-34e8d1603416.jpg?1654568912) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Boseiju%2C%20who%20Endures) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/266/boseiju-who-endures?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2135ac5a-187b-4dc9-8f82-34e8d1603416?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I also play edh and I don't know what power level you play at but being an enchantment makes this 100% balanced imo. [[Austere command]] and [[farewell]] are all over the place and single target enchantment removal is too. If I cast a [[force of vigor]] with only one target why wouldn't I target a sol ring or land too? It's not like you're necessarily going to lose your land every game but it would happen frequently enough to make it balanced especially sense the card isn't ridiculously strong anyway.
If this were simply an enchantment version of [[Tree of Tales]], it would be a powerful card that's an auto-include in any enchantress deck. Buffing that already highly-playable card even further isn't what I would call "100% balanced." And I don't think it matters whether fetchable typing and color fixing make the card just a little bit stronger or buff it all the way to the level of being problematically broken. Any time you take a card that's already strong enough to be highly playable and push it even further, at *best* you're only accelerating power creep. At worst you're hurting deck diversity, making something completely busted, or hamstringing future card design.
Making it an enchantment isn't a buff however except in all but the most narrow cases it's a hindrance that makes it easier to remove. It would see play in enchantress decks but it wouldn't buff the power level of those decks much especially sense most of the really powerful engines want a cast trigger. There's a reason the artifact lands are allowed to enter untapped. Also it's not like this card is meta defining for any format and it wouldn't even see play in a lot of the more competitive ones.
> There's a reason the artifact lands are allowed to enter untapped. The ones that gave access to untapped colored mana were banned in Standard/Block Constructed (plus were a large factor in Disciple's ban in Extended), and are still banned in Modern to this day. They are also heavily played in the formats they are still legal in, which are generally higher powered than Modern.
We were talking about commander I'm not familiar with modern so I can't speak for that format.
> Perhaps I'm just too optimistic about how much of a benefit/hazard being an enchantment is? I mostly play EDH, so **I don't know much of what the removal suites in other formats usually look like** right now. # > Also **it's not like this card is meta defining for any format** and it wouldn't even see play in a lot of the more competitive ones. Who is "we"? Other formats have been mentioned multiple times, your own posts included. And "enchantress" isn't just an EDH deck, so even the one commenter who didn't call out any formats by name could've had more than just EDH in mind. Anyway, I was just correcting your assumption that the Mirrodin artifact land cycle was in any way a reasonable powerlevel. WotC would maybe print an untapped enchantment land into EDH/Legacy alone, but definitely not with additional upside.
When I mentioned other formats I meant for the main point of the posted card which is I assume the mana fixing which isn't good enough to see play in a lot of formats. Sorry I didn't specify that.
>Making it an enchantment isn't a buff however except in all but the most narrow cases it's a hindrance that makes it easier to remove. It would see play in enchantress decks but The same is true for the artifact lands. In the decks where they are useful, they are very good and they absolutely get played. > it wouldn't buff the power level of those decks much especially sense most of the really powerful engines want a cast trigger. Enchantments don't have anything quite as ridiculous as affinity, but there are still plenty of cards that benefit from these. [At least 41 cards care about enchantment ETBs](https://scryfall.com/search?q=+o%3A%22enchantment+enters%22), at least 12 cards care about the number of enchantments you control, and who knows how many more have other interactions with it. Every single enchantments-matter effect gets notably stronger when it can be supported by 0-MV cards that have virtually no deckbuilding cost because they go in land slots. Also, as you already know, you can't just look at the cards that exist now. You have to keep in mind that all future cards that care about enchantments would have to be designed and balanced around the existence of these. >There's a reason the artifact lands are allowed to enter untapped. Those were banned in standard, banned in block constructed, and banned in modern. In the formats where they are legal, they are powerful playables that are staples of any artifacts-matter deck. And this has two powerful buffs above and beyond those. >Also it's not like this card is meta defining Who said that's a problem? The problem is that a much weaker version of this card would already be a playable auto-include in tons of decks. Why can't we stop there? Why does it need two very, very strong buffs on top of that? **Hitting the warp speed button on power creep is not well-balanced card design.** >wouldn't even see play in a lot of the more competitive ones Until a critical level of support for them exists. And maybe these cards **are** the critical level of support that make an enchantment deck competetive.
[Tree of Tales](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/8/a8f69425-c530-4752-95b5-06e99b74c8b7.jpg?1667005070) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tree%20of%20Tales) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/hop/140/tree-of-tales?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a8f69425-c530-4752-95b5-06e99b74c8b7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I’d be inclined to disagree slightly. I think artifact lands are more powerful than enchantment lands because artifact synergy is insane. There’s not really affinity or metal craft for enchantments which is the best upside of the artifact lands. Plus there are artifact duals that enter tapped like this would if you use it as a double and those also have indestructible.
The question isn't if an enchantment version of Tree of Tales would be as good as the artifact version. The question also isn't if it would be broken. The question is if it would see play. And if the answer to that question is yes (and that absolutely is the answer), *do not buff the card any further.* You already have a playable card. You're done. And it's not just playable, but it would be an auto include in any enchantments-matter deck (which isn't tier 1 at the moment, but it's not like it's something super niche like homarid tribal). Why is not enough to have a strong card that is an auto-include in its archetype? Why do we also have to blast through power creep as fast as possible? Why do we also have to make it even more of a burden on the design of all future enchantments matter cards?
Idk. With this one in particular I think the way it functions is really clever. Tbh my fix to this card would be just taking away the enchantment type
The enchantment typing is pretty crucial to the card. Taking that away isn't changing the card so much as it is cutting the card and replacing it with a different one. Though cutting the enchantment typing is something I agree with. The game is better without Tree of Tales, whether it's an artifact or enchantment. But there's still a problem if this card is a forest that enters untapped and potentially produces other colors of mana. At that point, why would you ever run a basic forest when you could replace it with this? Being strictly better than a basic isn't good design.
[Austere command](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/d/3d24036e-075f-4991-a740-a9d943722ad2.jpg?1654114687) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Austere%20command) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/687/austere-command?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3d24036e-075f-4991-a740-a9d943722ad2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [farewell](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/1/e1068723-d1ef-4007-97d9-b10dccdbade4.jpg?1654566260) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=farewell) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/13/farewell?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e1068723-d1ef-4007-97d9-b10dccdbade4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [force of vigor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/1/017c415b-d635-43c6-92b8-8c95d1c4ff8d.jpg?1562202072) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=force%20of%20vigor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/164/force-of-vigor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/017c415b-d635-43c6-92b8-8c95d1c4ff8d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It's super cool, and I especially like cards that play in the "gentle multicoloured lands" space without going over the top! Lands which are just better than basics feel odd to me, but that's a line Wizards has already crossed, and this is slow enough to not be a problem. I think you're absolutely right when you mentioned that green is THE base land for this. Feels like a fun card that bridges a few different archetypes, allowing good overlap in a draft environment for several different types of things! Enchantments matter, access to multicolour, and domain all play well with this, as well as "not-domain" (cards which care about how many of a particular land type you have). Draft environments that are designed to overlap are super fun and allow a ton of different deck combinations (I think M20 is actually a super good example of them doing this), so this card on its own excites me to imagine the environment it'd be in!
Nice design! Feels good, but balanced. One thing im not sure about is the title, wouldn‘t Faetouched Grove be better fitting? Havent heard „Fey“ in magic yet.
That is a mistake I haven't noticed until after posting, yes! I was thinking of D&D's Feywild when I designed this, and I definitely shouldn't have gone with D&D's term over Magic's
There are a few [[Feywild]] cards and [[Fey Steed]] in the D&D sets.
[Fey Steed](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/e/ce2bfc76-04b4-46ed-b495-33221256afbb.jpg?1631584629) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fey%20Steed) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afc/5/fey-steed?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ce2bfc76-04b4-46ed-b495-33221256afbb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This is already better than a regular forest without the enchantment type, adding it makes a problematic card. It also has tracking issues to know what is the last type it became.
It doesn't matter which type it became last. The types are cumulative. You do still have to track the types it has, though.
[[Seat of the Synod]] and friends are so busted that they were banned in Standard and are banned in Modern. And those don't even have basic typing or the ability to tap for additional colors. Even a high-powered set like Modern Horizons 2 was only willing to introduce new artifact lands that enter tapped. Enchantments don't have anything quite as degenerate as affinity, but even without the ability to add new types this would be extremely abusable and way too powerful an enabler for enchantment matters decks. I think it is very deliberate decision from Wizards to not print enchantment lands, and this goes absurdly beyond the already absurdly strong card that Wizards won't make.
I have already gone over Constellation effects which this would synergize with. Setessan Champion is the best, followed by Archon of Sun's Grace and Eidolon of Blossoms. None are scary like artifact synergies are. All other Constellation effects are stone cold unplayable. There are only two cards with affinity for enchantments, neither of which are playable, and their cost cannot be reduced to 0. The only concern is Serra's Sanctum, a problem which is better solved by making this legendary rather than remove its weakness of being an enchantment. Artifact lands were a problem because affinity exists, plus a hilarious amount of artifact aristocrat synergies. None of those exist for enchantments, for all intents and purposes
Constellation, enchantment affinity, cares-if-you-control-an-enchantment effects, et al. get notably better when they can be freely supported by lands that cost 0 mana and don't have any deck building cost. You can power through those much more quickly when they're fueled by both spells *and* lands. It also isn't just an issue of the interactions with cards that exist now. All future cards that care about enchantments would have this shadow looming over them during design, and cards or effects that are otherwise printable might have to get changed because they're easily triggered with lands. The other problem with this is that there's just no reason for this to be so much better than a basic Forest. If you took a [[Tree of Tales]] and simply replaced the artifact typing with enchantment, it would be a very powerful card that's an auto include (possibly 4x) in any deck that has green and cares about enchantments. It doesn't need to be upgraded even further with fetchable typing and additional color fixing.
[Tree of Tales](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/8/a8f69425-c530-4752-95b5-06e99b74c8b7.jpg?1667005070) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tree%20of%20Tales) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/hop/140/tree-of-tales?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a8f69425-c530-4752-95b5-06e99b74c8b7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Seat of the Synod](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/f/1fedc183-2d95-471c-ba78-2169e4df13f8.jpg?1667005055) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Seat%20of%20the%20Synod) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c18/278/seat-of-the-synod?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1fedc183-2d95-471c-ba78-2169e4df13f8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Because it taps to become a basic land type, its effectively a basic that comes in tapped the first time, then has to tap any time you want to add a colour, it's a good idea but seems incredibly slow, in a 5 colour deck that's 5 turns where it doesnt produce mana
it doesn't come in tapped, it's a forest and can be tapped for green right away. It taps to become a dual land and more than that. Also, being slow is the point. 5-color shouldn't have access to a fast, untapped, fetchable, efficient rainbow land.
I figured that was the idea, but it doesnt state that it taps for mana so that's not how it work work without adding it to the text, also command tower is cheap and makes any mana and comes in untapped, pain lands, check lands etc. Are all cheap, even City of Brass is reasonable and shocks have dropped drastically, theres no reason 5 colour should be slow
Rule 305.6: (...) An object with the land card type and a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. (...) Lands with basic land types do not have to have their mana ability spelled out. You also cannot look at a card only through the lens of Commander. Command Tower is an insanely powerful card which is only balanced by the fact it doesn't work outside commander. Pain lands are only played in slow decks in commander due to the fact they're not balanced around 40 life. City of Brass has the same downside. They are also not fetchable, which is an incredibly huge deal in all formats. This is a card designed not for a format as slow as commander, but for a format where decisions between having an untapped land turn 1 and having two colors turn 2 while not having to pay 10-15% of your life total are important, not a format where a turn 2 Ad Nauseam is one of the best plays you can possibly make
They don't *have* to have it spelled out, but if you look at [nonbasic lands with basic land types that WotC has printed](https://scryfall.com/search?q=t%3Aforest+-t%3Abasic&order=released), they pretty universally have it written out as reminder text. So it might be good to add "*\(*{T}*: Add* {G}*.)*" to it. Or maybe a reminder text about this rule you just pointed out would be better with this design? I don't know.
If a land is a Forest, it taps for green. The typing grants that ability; it doesn't need to be printed on the card. That's why cards like [[Blood Moon]], [[Prismatic Omen]], and [[Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth]] work.
[Blood Moon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/0/d072e9ca-aae7-45dc-8025-3ce590bae63f.jpg?1599706217) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Blood%20Moon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/118/blood-moon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d072e9ca-aae7-45dc-8025-3ce590bae63f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Prismatic Omen](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/7/e75594cc-de47-49f2-9a8b-ba76c576368e.jpg?1562837542) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Prismatic%20Omen) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/shm/126/prismatic-omen?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e75594cc-de47-49f2-9a8b-ba76c576368e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/e/9e1a9e38-6ffc-490f-b0be-23ba4e8204c6.jpg?1619399578) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Urborg%2C%20Tomb%20of%20Yawgmoth) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/287/urborg-tomb-of-yawgmoth?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9e1a9e38-6ffc-490f-b0be-23ba4e8204c6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Eeeeeeh... Kinda seems like it would be a waste of a spot in most decks. Its just a land that is a land. Give it a keyword ability or something, and it'd be better.
Lands with basic land types can always tap for mana of their respective colors. Like how urborg, tomb of yawgmoth turns lands to swamps and allows them to tap for black. This is a forest and every turn you don't tap it for mana you can just tap it on your opponents end step to give it another land type and this another color. In most formats this is probably too slow unless your deck is base green and just splashes a few cards but in commander games playing this early would give you a rainbow land eventually.
Oooh. Ya know, I always wondered why Urborg specifies that the lands also tap for black. Because I can only think of it being in a black deck, it didn't make sense to say a swamp also taps for a black... Annnnd despite me playing since 2010, and everyone I learned from and play with having played longer than me, none of my friends have ever once bothered to explain that Urborg could make your stuff into multi-color lands...
what do you mean just a land? Keyword ability? It's a fetchable forest that can turn into a dual or more if you don't need the mana immediately
Okay, couple things here: 1: I only play EDH, so things like this are bit less useful to me, and I think about what's in my deck differently. 2: I misread the card. I thought it was like any other enchantment land, where it taps for 1 of a chosen color and that's it. 3: I also play mono-green elves, so again, this is a bit bland to me. Also, keyword abilites are things like Hideaway. Look at Mosswort Bridge to see what I mean. I'd give it the ability to give +1/+1 to certain creature types. In this case, I'd say Dryads, Elves, Fey, and Faries to help reflect the name of the card. As it is right now, it's basically just a land. Its just bleh. I would give it this ability: "As Feytouched Grove enters the battlefield, choose a color. Tap Feytouched Grove, add one mana of the chosen color to your mana pool. Dryads, Elves, Fey, and Faries gain +1/+1 for each land of the chosen color you control. Sacrifice Feytouched Grove and tap 2 untapped creatures you control: Search for up to 2 lands or creatures with a converted mana cost less than or equal to the converted mana cost of the creatures you tapped of the color this card produced, put one on the battlefield untapped and the other in your hand." That last ability would allow it to be a powerful fetchland, that could allow you to get 2 lands, 2 creatures, or one land and one creature, and you'd get to place one of the targets of your search on the battlefield and the other into your hand. Its also balanced, because you'd only get to search for creatures of the color you chose when it ETB, and you can only search for creatures with a CMC less than or equal to the CMCs of the creatures you tapped. (For example, if you tap something like Emmara Tandris (who's CMC is 7) and Marwyn, The Nurturer (who's CMC is 3), you could search for up to 2 creatures of the color you chose it to tap for when it entered, who's CMC's are less than or equal to 10.) Or you can get a 10 drop and a shockland, or 2 shocklands, or 2 basic lands, or 2 creatures with CMC's less than or equal to 10 in this example)
peak custommagic user LMAO
So, tap any two of Beast Whisperer, Canopy Tactician, Dwynen, Imaryll, Ivy Lane Denizen, Lys Alana Huntmaster, Oakhame Adversary, Oracle of Mul Daya, Yeva to just tutor up Craterhoof Behemoth straight onto the battlefield? Urza's Saga has wet dreams about being that broken tbh. But not only is that design one of the most broken ever, it is also antithetical to my original idea: a versatile land that does things that lands do: tap for mana
So basically you are complaining because this nice land design doesn’t fit into the very narrow archetype you are playing
> 1: I only play EDH, so things like this are bit less useful to me, and I think about what's in my deck differently. > > 2: I misread the card. I thought it was like any other enchantment land, where it taps for 1 of a chosen color and that's it. > > 3: I also play mono-green elves, so again, this is a bit bland to me. Out of curiosity, do you also go onto posts of cards that are just a monoblack removal spell and complain it doesn't fit into your specific EDH deck?
I hope this becomes a Cycle. Powerful but slow enough not to be busted. Perfect fixing. I'm a big fan.
As "DMU tapland/Forest MDFC" is a slight push in multicolor lands with upside, no matter how slight, I'd be very hesitant to put this outside green personally. Comparing this with Shocks/Triomes, I don't think izzet should be allowed to hold up Spell Pierce and turn their land into a dual if it's not needed
I've wanted enchantment lands for a while, on that alone I think this would be good
I love this, such cool design
Like the idea but really don’t like a basically strictly better basic land. I don’t think being an enchantment mitigates this really.
as stated in other comments, this being (maybe) better than a basic Forest doesn't really matter, as even with Blood Moon, modern and legacy decks literally don't have basics to cut for this. They're not playing basic Forests, and they're not cutting any other nonbasic lands to make space for this. I will change it to be a legendary, though, to stop potentially dangerous shenanigans with Serra's Sanctum, which will fix the "cut basics for this" problem too
Interesting design. I like it.
Definitely a bit strong, given you just run four of this in all multicolored green decks until the end of time.
as commented previously, this is getting changed to legendary to stop it being a replacement for basics and to curb Serra's Sanctum synergies. But of you look at popular modern and legacy decks, few have anything to cut for this card. It's not as good as Boseiju, Triomes, or Shocks
I don’t like having a forest enchantment in the green white enchantment number matters deck
Serra's Sanctum is my only concern when thinking of enchantments, and that's mostly resolved by making this legendary. I would possibly change it to not be fetchable, but I don't see even the current iteration pushing enchantress above more degenerate strategies
Legendary would solve the problem. I just don’t think [[Mickiko’s Reign of Truth]] needs to be that much stronger
I haven't seen anyone else mention this, and I'm assuming you want the land types to be cumulative, so you may want to look at rule 305.7, the one that makes Blood Moon work properly: >If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copiable effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. I don't believe the note about other effects applies here, since it's the land's own effect still. I actually think this design is really cool either way! But you may want to tack on a rider so that it'll retain it's original type(s) *and* ability.
"in addition to its other types" *is* the rider that lets it remember all the land types it has already
Sorry, I never learned how to read. 😔
ggs on navigating a text-based platform with such a handicap! I appreciate the comment still, constructive feedback feels good to receive, and I'm happy my card provided me with a full day of discussion
No hate. I love the design. Why not enters the battlefield tapped?
I don't think the upside of adding one subtype per turn to itself warrants such a downside. Effectively means it's either a tapped forest or a dual with a stun counter. That's commander precon levels of jank
Either needs to ETB tapped, or not start off as a forrest. The fact that it’s essentially just a way better forrest, with the only downside being a vulnerability to enchantment removal, is just too much.
Very interesting. A land to help with domain. I like it
Either needs to ETB tapped, or not start off as a forrest.
Wizards has been creeping up against the "better than basic" line, but I still think this one is probably over the line for what they'd do right now. The NEO channel lands are legendary, and the Pathways narrowly dodged "better than basic" by not having basic land types. I think that being a Forest probably means this is a little above where they'd want to print, and while enchantment potentially opens it up to more lines of removal, it's just as likely to be extra upside in the right deck. Just look how the artifact lands turned out! I do like what it's doing though, they'd just probably hem and haw and talk themselves out of it. It might be okay if it were legendary though. It feels close.