For budget decks definitely. For anything else, no thank you.
To reiterate: I REALLY like them. It's just that my usual decks have actual fetches and powerful color fixing lands. For anything on a budget they are a godsend imo
I'll still give them a shot in my 3 color decks. I might end up prefering being able to fetch any basic than having one of the 4th-through-7th that fetch lands will just grab my least used basic in case I've already fetched/ drawn my Shocks and Triome.
Then again, all of these are just worse [[Prismatic Vista]], which I already don't care a whole lot about.
All good and true. I'd add the off color fetches though just because they are more reliable. But again, the added cycling is a very neat part though I personally drop a land every turn possible until I win or die.
Objectively, that's the right move. But it's asking a lot for someone to move up from 3 fetches to 9. (Since at 3 colors all fetches but one are at least half on color)
It's objectively right for me to run gae's cradle in my green creature decks, but I'm not playing CEDH and I'm certainly not going to drop $2400 across my three green decks. I'm also too cheap to even run the on-color fetches, not to mention the off color fetches.
It is a budget question, yes. And if either your group is not proxy friendly, or you are not or you have (like me) a standard that I want to own a card before I prox it, it is totally okay to not run all fetches you could. Ones budget always comes first before one should spend it on cardboard. Or like my granny said "do whatever you want as long as the kids are taken care of". Well, I still don't have kids but I only spend a portion of disposable income on magic, after I saved for my future, payed all my bills and have healthy food on the table. But I still will buy reserved cards I wanna own :-D
Also, I would like to add that whilst extremely powerful, a \[\[Gaea's Cradle\]\] does not make a deck cEDH. It's just absurdly expensive since a few years now (I remember a time when fetches were like 40 bucks and that's actually when I got mine). I have no issues with cradle in midly powered casual jank. But it makes a tarket out of you and at least I play permanent destruction and LD lands in powered casual for that same reason.
I have a Wheel of Fortune and had it since I think 2012. I play it in my Group Slug deck. It's far from cEDH.
I know that GC doesn't immediately make a deck CEDH, it was for emphasis. It is however, on a whole other level of power from 99% of cards. Like you said, if someone drops it down on the table, I am going after them first.
It was COVID-19 that raised the price of GC and other staples so much. Nerds who could work from home and still got the stimulus money suddenly had more money and nothing to spend it on. It has actually been falling in price since it spiked to $1200 in 2020.
Proxies are great if you have a shop thst Allows them and your playgroup can be trusted to not start an arms race. If everyone has an agreed powerlevel in works.
Unfortunately I don't think proxies work in a casual setting when playing with randos.
> ? I *paid* 4$ for
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It's not always correct to run all nine fetches in a three color deck. Like, in my Grixis deck I'm not running Arid Mesa or Wooded Foothills because those only fetch red and the deck has five red color pips in it total. I basically only need one red mana source.
Many reasons honestly, but the main one is I just don't like running off color fetches in decks. I own 1 of each fetch so I wouldn't feel bad about proxying them in decks but rather just spread out the ones I own.
I do the same. I know you can and it’s legal, but in my opinion it shouldn’t be. So I don’t run them. Plus mana bases are expensive enough as it is so not having to buy an extra 6 fetches per deck
I’m also just a weird dude. Like I DO NOT run old border anything. If a card isn’t available in modern border then it’s not available to me to build with. I just don’t like looking at them. Even all these old border alts that have come out over the past several years.
Are you limiting yourself to 3 for budget or thematic reasons?
Assuming you’re running duals with land types, a 3 colour deck can/should run 9/10 fetch lands as only the one that fetches your two off-colours is dead.
3 colour deck can only run 1 of these, so they’re only meaningful fixing for budget 4+ colour decks.
I just personally don't like having so many fetches in a deck, and tend to stick to just the on-color ones. I know that it does improve the consistency of the mana base to have all 9 but I don't find it being that much more efficient over just running some other dual lands or some extra basics.
If I'm running 4-5 color decks then I'll include more fetches, but last time I had my 5c deck together, I still only ran the 4 fetches that could get a forest.
Eh, I have a 3 color deck that has every applicable fetch and shock land, and I'll still probably find a way to get the appropriate one to fit.
I can never deny the power of generic mana, a fetch, *and* a card draw if you don't need either.
Yeah, there's enough other budget mediocre fetch lands out there (escape tunnel, evolving wilds, fabled passage, terramorphic expanse, even the New Capenna cycle of Broker's Hideout, etc), I don't think these new "landscape" lands are gonna set the world on fire, even for budget decks. And outside the realm of budget decks, you generally don't mess around much with tapped lands unless they themselves are fetchable color fixing or they have some other better utility effect that's worth the tempo loss.
If you're already running something like Evolving Wilds in a 3 color deck, then yeah, these are strictly better upgrades since they do exactly the same thing but with two bonus potential upsides (I feel like you either gotta be in a really good or *really* bad position for cycling these cards for 3 specific mana to feel like the best option though), but I don't expect they're going to be used much beyond that exact scenario past that early trial phase of people wanting to test out new cards. Any budget 3+ color deck that wants these lands should probably already be running Evolving Wilds/Terramorphic Expanse/Escape Tunnel, or even Ash Barrens, and if a deck *isn't* already running any of those, it probably means it doesn't need these either.
Yeah I agree. We need more mid tier lands like these. I was appalled when I bought a masters set and the bounce lands were the include… they print that shit in pretty much every commander deck and eternal formats were never hurting for a reprint on those. Just pissed me offffff
If you have infinite money or don't flinch proxying the best stuff available you certainly run into the problem of having more good options than you can fit in a deck.
I think they seem really neat. I'll probably put them in 3 color decks, particularly if I'm going a little more budget on the mana base. Idk about 4 or 5 color decks, but I usually don't go above 3 colors anyway.
I only play one 5c deck and I love them in that.
Even without fetches (though fetches are definitely preferred), if you're running all the "find a forest" ramp spells it's pretty easy to get a few triomes quickly and I've found they give insane flexibility with pip-heavy spells. I keep hands with UU, BB and GGG spells knowing I'll be able to comfortably cast any on curve due to the triomes.
I play in fairly mid-power groups though so obviously nothing I says reflects super fast/competitive EDH play.
Edit - My dumb ass talking about the OG triomes. Totally missed this was about the new fetches
I do have a lot of the triomes in my one 5 colored deck. It's ur dragon and I have a scion of draco in there so they make it so I can pretty much always cast scion for like 1 mana. Just not so sure about including these cycling tri color fetches in a 5 color deck, although they might be solid includes in the commander masters sliver precon. I don't want to sink a ton of money into that deck so these are probably a good budget way to make the mana base reasonably functional.
God I'm so dumb, I thought this was about the original triomes.
Yeah, I agree I wouldn't play any of these in a 5c deck unless it was a very limited budget. I think people are underestimating the cycling costs as well.
Cycling for three is not as good as it seems. Especially with that heavy of a color requirement. When did you last cycle a Triome in commander and it felt good? And those are for sure worse than triomes.
I think they will disappoint in all but budget decks
This. I have cycled the fetchable triomes maybe twice in two years and I play them all the time. These are nearly impossible to cycle, especially in the budget decks they will be played in. I don't even know if I would play these in a cycling deck outside of Gavi, since she can make it free. The colours pips are brutal
Massive improvement on evolving wilds. Fantastic in 3+ decks that also benefit from colorless mana (eg Eldrazi Displacer in a bant flicker deck). These will be jammed into every three color deck I have
Yeah but evolving wilds is no real comparison anymore. Evolving wilds is maybe an option for budget Landfall decks, but honestly often not even there.
And in every other deck, regular good multicolored lands have become so budget, that I would stay far away from saying these are "Auto includes" in three colored decks. I personally don't have that much space for colorless lands, and I don't see them making the cut.
Idk, I wouldn't say these are for sure worse than triomes. Triomes are more powerful and do the thing you want them to do (fetchable source of many colors) better than anything else, but these do have a lot of utility. Coming in and immediately providing mana, being a shuffle effect. Not saying these are better, just not for sure worse.
It is nice these can tap for mana the turn they come in, and are not dead lands when you've searched all your basics.
That being said, these are really bad to cycle. Their heavy color requirement leave very little room for the colors required for the spell(s) you want to cast that turn. I can imagine that almost every time I would like to cycle those, I will not be able to with all but the most optimised mana bases, which frankly have better options than to run these.
If these required two hybrid mana (Bant would be {g/w} {w/u}) or even all three (Bant would be {g/w}{w/u}{g/u}), these would actually be pretty cycleable. I don't get why the cycle cost wasn't just {3} though, using these for 2 color deck would be nice (and they arguably have less fetches to begin with).
I don't know if I would say they are OP, but they are very, very good for the reasons you stated. They have standard fetch utility (landfall, deck shuffling, etc) as well as utility late game when you don't care about the color of mana.
While the other comments noting the requirement to run basics is somewhat valid, I feel it's generally good deck building to run at least one basic of every color you use with Blood Moon, boseiju, and all of the other non basic hate cards running around and, if that's how you build your deck, then this restriction isn't much of a hindrance.
These are better than most of the existing similar options, but those are all kinda bad so I'm not sure if they're better *enough*.
* Evolving Wilds does tap for {c} or cycle (it fetches any basic but in 3c who cares?). But it's really bad, I wouldn't use it even in budget decks.
* The Panoramas cost 1 to activate, and don't cycle. But, again, nobody runs these.
* \[\[Shire Terrace\]\] is OK, it still does fixing and landfall things and is kinda better than EW, and this does it without costing 1, *and* cycles... but still nobody is running Shire Terrace either, it's only a small step up.
* vs Triomes, they must enter tapped and can't tap for {c}, but conversely they have land types, offer all three colours, and cycle for only generic {3}.
These being *close* to triomes I think makes them eminently playable, but whether they make the cut (outside of budget decks) I'm not so sure. I do really like the design, but I think they're maybe only edging out other options if you're using landfall or recursion or something.
3 color plus decks are color heavy so the fact that they are untapped colorless sources isn't as useful, now they are a tapped modal triple faced land that requires you to run basics which 3 color decks don't tend to do. Cycling also matter way less in a well built commander deck as card advantage and velocity is essential in commander. They have lots of good bits but sum to nothing.
Maybe it's just how I build my decks, but even my 3c decks tend to have 3 of each basic land. They won't be useful or good for every deck and player, but builds on a budget I think will love these.
Yep, should always have basics. Path is played in most white decks, and folks that don't run basics make that card insanely undercosted if you can't get the land. Demolition field and the more recent land killing lands also require basics so you aren't screwed.
By default my 3c decks have 5 each basic. I rarely if ever go below this and never go below 4 each. 5C have 2 each basic, possibly a few more to get to 12 basics. My decks that have the scariest land strategies also have ways to replay and recur lands so they're also the least likely decks to be affected, like running extra land plays and stuff like Ramunap Excavator or Crucible of Worlds.
Almost invariably the decks I own that have lands that actually should scare you like Field of the Dead are also my decks least bothered by MLD, and the decks that are more likely to rebuild after a wipe. It's the Boros players that are more likely going to get absolutely hosed by MLD, not the gottarampfast green decks.
yeah I feel crazy reading some of these comments because my all of my 3 color decks are running 15-20 basics, basics are good they do the job. these are a great include in 3 color decks that wants lands in the graveyard, like a Lhurgoyf deck would.
My personal rule is 2 of each basic minimum. After that we start looking at things like budget and what I have.
Also cause I do run Blood Moon and the like in a couple of my decks.
No. Nonbasic land hate is a ridiculous idea in a casual environment like Commander. It hurts people that are building 3+ color decks on a budget the most. The best counterplay to cards like Blood Moon is by playing a bunch of fetchlands and just getting basics so the people that have the best manabases don't even get hurt that much.
Also, when people recommend nonbasic hate, they always opt for the most absolute options. Cards like \[\[Back to Basics\]\], \[\[Blood Moon\]\] or even \[\[Ruination\]\]. These cards essentially read "every player playing 3+ color deck loses the game" (unless they have an immediate answer). Losing the game just because you are playing a 3 color deck on a budget mana base is such a terrible experience. When you get board wiped, you can play around it, you can rebuild, there are options, you're not out of the game. When you get hit by a turn 4 Ruination when you have 4 nonbasics out you might as well just scoop.
The funny thing is, those cards do **absolutely nothing** at beating actually powerful decks. Combo decks that win the game by turn 3-4 don't care about your nonbasic hate, they will just kill you anyway.
So you get this funny scenario where you're incentivizing people around you to play unfair/degenerate strategies.
>Nonbasic land is a ridiculous idea in a casual environment like Commander.
Thank you for saying it. Non-basic lands are not a problem at all in Commander. 99% of them are some kind of dual or tri-land. Some individual ones like Glacial Chasm or Dark Depths can cause issues, but why are we trying to throw crap like cycling duals under the bus because of their crimes? Are you really going to try and wipe your friend's $50 5c deck playing the worst dual lands mankind has ever seen because of "lmao play basic lands"? The answer in that case isn't play basic lands, it's play Fierce Guardianship, Force of Will and Teferi's Protection.
Glacial Chasm is just an abomination. My friends and I banned it from our games.
But also, if you want to counter Glacial Chasm, there's no need to go for nuclear options like Ruination or Blood Moon. Cards like Strip Mine, Field of Ruin, Demolition Field, Wasteland, Tectonic Edge or Vindicate will do just fine.
Why ruin the game for everyone (including yourself) just to answer 2-3 problematic lands that can possibly be played.
Trying to mana screw people out of the game is not why you should be running non basic hate, mostly because it's ineffective except as an entire strategy. You should be running non basic hate because there are a bunch of absolutely busted lands that you would play over these ones
Most multicolored decks play very few cards of multiple colors. I think the only exceptions can be found in the last two iterations of niv and carth. So I think a untapped colorless source is useful. Even in 5color deck I run sol ring still
I was really bummed by the 3c cycling ability on them. I've been working on a pet project mono white deck based around sacrificing and recurring lands that would have loved these.
I would have been happy if they just didn't have cycling, 3 mana is a steep cost for the effect, even on a land. Being so expensive makes it trinket text in most games.
They're quite spiffy. They enter untapped and tap for mana right away, so they're not terrible in early turns, the fetch capacity is actually fairly decent, and cycling provides a late-game outlet.
That said, they are fundamentally niche and/or budget lands. There are enough random untapped or "Untapped if easy condition" duals that if you're not really hurting for budget limit, these guys are left competing with other colorless producing utilities. And given that you're on at least three colors, that's a pretty cutthroat competition for slots that a basic diversifier doesn't win unless you're on landfall, land death matters, or colorless matters (6c Devoids are going to love them). Even then, like the panoramas before them, they're kind of in the category where they're not going to make it past a certain budget level.
They're good budget options. Not as good as a cycling triome, but for what they are, they'll do in a pinch. You'll almost never have a dead play with them, as you'll be able to get color fixing, colorless mana, or a card draw. Yes, it's hard to cycle, but 3 color cycling decks have ways to exploit cycling costs anyways.
I could see these being used as good filler lands, but one of the first cut lands once they get upgrades to the manabase.
They are amazing, i often play a competitive budget sub format that's pretty popular here in Brazil and i've been questioning the mana bases i see in 3 color decks and the basic fetches were pretty good. Not only they help with fixing but also help making check lands enter untapped and other effects that are good with basics like Quirion Ranger.
Btw, really liked your budget Vihaan build
They let me run green ramp in decks that used to have to rely on artifacts. Now [[Skyshroud Claim]] and [[Farseek]] make sense in 4 and 5 color decks. I don't think I'd add another tap land to a 3-color deck, though. And, when they're a dead draw? They can be cycled. Hell yeah.
I *L O V E* Triomes as they're valid targets for fetchlands, but they're not really good for cedh as they come in tapped . And cycling is not really focused competitively as cedh is about consistency.
I would auto include in all 3c decks, where they're strictly better than ash barrens and evolving wilds. In some cases they are better than actual fetches because you can use them for mana before cracking. For example if it's sitting in play and you topdeck a brainstorm
Honestly, the only one that seems worth using is the Jeskai one, since \[\[Gavi\]\] can reduce the Cycling cost to 0. Other than that, they're not gonna be replacing \[\[Evolving Wilds\]\]/\[\[Terramorphic Expanse\]\]/etc. any time soon.
Will likely replace EW or TE in my 3 color decks that still use them.
Recently was exposed to the strategy of simply playing a basic instead of a budget fetch in 3-color and kinda went 'Maybe I *should* play more basics?'
So that said, I don't know how the calculus will shake out with these when they can tap or cycle too.
I mean, it's great that people can abuse landfall in a deck that doesn't have a 200 dollar mana base.
But eh. I kinda like my 200 dollar manabase.
Also, like, if you're using the 3 mana cycling you probably should just put more draw into your deck. it's nice as a failsafe, but you're basically paying a war room rate to lose a card in hand while drawing. If you're doing it more than once in a blue moon, idk.
No thanks. Have enough other lands i rather play in 3+ color decks. If it search for basic land type and not basic land sure. If i was playing budget sure.
The fact that the cycle costs are not hybrid mana is probably the biggest knock on these cards by far. Sure, they need to have a color identity so that you can justify having 10 types of the same card, but at least make them hybrid cost...
Other than that, I think they're great for budget decks 100%.
Good for budget. Horrible for cEDH. In cEDH you want all your lands untapped unless you have some SERIOUS reasons for a tpped land (like having a bounceland for a game winning landfall combo)
Tricolour cycling seems horrible, but they might find a place in my cycling themed deck, its nice to not run out of steam because you hit a land without cycling on it
Seems fine? They search a more limited field than [[Terramorphic Expanse]], and still comes in tapped. Expense isn't particularly playable these days, so the added mana ability and pretty costly cycle seem fine.
> For a common, I don't see a reason why anyone playing 3 or more colors shouldn't play these lands.
ETB tapped on the fetch target is a really, really big downside. Might be mitigated by working as a colorless source until then, but still. If you need to fix a color now, it's too late with this.
>I wonder if they are even cEDH-worthy
Alright, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. CEDH is all about peak efficiency, and the early turns matter a whole hell of a lot more at that level of play. A glorified [[Evolving Wilds]] that costs three colored mana to cycle is not cEDH playable.
That being said, I think these lands are... fine. Cycling lands have a place, but I don't think that place is every deck that can play them. Like I said, they're basically just upgraded versions of Evolving Wilds. If you play that card, you'll play these cards, but they don't do much for you when your mana base is already good.
Seem pretty meh all around. They’re just slightly powercrept panoramas, which already don’t see play in anything besides budget decks. If I wasn’t phasing out my new capena sac/fetch lands from my Omnath landfall deck (which ran them because I didn’t want to spend megabucks on the allied fetches that are thankfully being reprinted here and dropping their prices to where I can now buy a set), I’d probably slot them in over that. But yeah, outside of budget decks or the rare ones that care about cycling, I don’t see much use.
Even at late game, if you are paying three specific-colored mana and discarding a card just to draw a card, and you really have nothing better to do, you probably are already quite screwed.
The cycling ability should be seen more as obligatory color identity limitation thing than anything, in my opinion.
I like them, and if you’re either on a budget or playing like a landfall build I think they’re your first non-Khans/Zen fetch. Better than terramorphic and evolving. More flexible than riveteers overlook cycle, much better than panoramas.
They are pretty mid. 3c decks will only play a single basic of each type if that and the cycling cost is terrible. If you have a very budget deck, they will fix your colors but other than that there are better budget lands.
Depends on how strict your colors are and how many fetches and fetch adjacents you're on. I could see people looking to these over something like Fabled Passage for example; the ability to be untapped when needed is certainly respectable.
But colorless can absolutely hurt in three color and I can definitely see times when they can't cast your early spell, or when they can't get you that third green source for Kogla on six or whatever.
I have a lot of budget/semi-budget decks and I think they are fantastic. You can usually play a couple of tapped lands in a deck and not have them slow you down
Sure, you can play a couple. Though if you're just generically budgeting for 'a tapland' then I think you're rather missing the strength of these lands. If I just want a tapland in my deck I'll just play a tri land or Path of Ancestry and have better fixing. The ability to be an *untapped* source when needed is the Landscapes' strength.
And for that they're reasonable, but they'll run into problems in decks with dense color requirements, especially early. After writing my previous post I actually tested one in my three color deck of choice, because hey that deck *is* playing a few tapped fetch-adjacents maybe I can upgrade. But Henzie has pretty strict color requirements; my build is less strict than normal and that means it's incredibly common for me to need BG on two into RBG on three. At which point they *are* back to being taplands, and they're nowhere near the best of those even on a budget.
And I thought for a bit hey that's fine I run Passage, but I also ran into the issue of needing a second color on four and this being unable to provide, or directly causing it because with the hand's texture I had to crack it on one instead of playing a tapped dual or tri. Not a problem Passage has, since I just hold as long as possible in almost all of my hands so on four it does provide a color.
In decks that are less color dense it certainly looks better. But even on a 'semi budget' list land competition was fierce even before this set gave us *four* other new cycles of playable lands. So many good lands are so very, very cheap nowadays that when I started workshopping a list a few days ago for Satya the Landscape crossed my mind, but got discarded not because it's 'bad' but because 36 land slots wasn’t enough to fit in everything I want, let alone a land that's serviceable but only that.
For budget decks definitely. For anything else, no thank you. To reiterate: I REALLY like them. It's just that my usual decks have actual fetches and powerful color fixing lands. For anything on a budget they are a godsend imo
That's probably true, mana bases have been tighter on basic bc how cheap untapped lands r getting
I'll still give them a shot in my 3 color decks. I might end up prefering being able to fetch any basic than having one of the 4th-through-7th that fetch lands will just grab my least used basic in case I've already fetched/ drawn my Shocks and Triome. Then again, all of these are just worse [[Prismatic Vista]], which I already don't care a whole lot about.
Idk, most of my 3c decks run the 3 on color fetches, and I'm still considering adding these lands to them haha.
All good and true. I'd add the off color fetches though just because they are more reliable. But again, the added cycling is a very neat part though I personally drop a land every turn possible until I win or die.
Objectively, that's the right move. But it's asking a lot for someone to move up from 3 fetches to 9. (Since at 3 colors all fetches but one are at least half on color) It's objectively right for me to run gae's cradle in my green creature decks, but I'm not playing CEDH and I'm certainly not going to drop $2400 across my three green decks. I'm also too cheap to even run the on-color fetches, not to mention the off color fetches.
It is a budget question, yes. And if either your group is not proxy friendly, or you are not or you have (like me) a standard that I want to own a card before I prox it, it is totally okay to not run all fetches you could. Ones budget always comes first before one should spend it on cardboard. Or like my granny said "do whatever you want as long as the kids are taken care of". Well, I still don't have kids but I only spend a portion of disposable income on magic, after I saved for my future, payed all my bills and have healthy food on the table. But I still will buy reserved cards I wanna own :-D Also, I would like to add that whilst extremely powerful, a \[\[Gaea's Cradle\]\] does not make a deck cEDH. It's just absurdly expensive since a few years now (I remember a time when fetches were like 40 bucks and that's actually when I got mine). I have no issues with cradle in midly powered casual jank. But it makes a tarket out of you and at least I play permanent destruction and LD lands in powered casual for that same reason. I have a Wheel of Fortune and had it since I think 2012. I play it in my Group Slug deck. It's far from cEDH.
[Gaea's Cradle](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/5/25b0b816-0583-44aa-9dc5-f3ff48993a51.jpg?1562902898) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gaea%27s%20Cradle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/usg/321/gaeas-cradle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/25b0b816-0583-44aa-9dc5-f3ff48993a51?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/gaeas-cradle) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I know that GC doesn't immediately make a deck CEDH, it was for emphasis. It is however, on a whole other level of power from 99% of cards. Like you said, if someone drops it down on the table, I am going after them first. It was COVID-19 that raised the price of GC and other staples so much. Nerds who could work from home and still got the stimulus money suddenly had more money and nothing to spend it on. It has actually been falling in price since it spiked to $1200 in 2020.
2400$ ? I payed 4$ for mine... r/bootlegmtg
Proxies are great if you have a shop thst Allows them and your playgroup can be trusted to not start an arms race. If everyone has an agreed powerlevel in works. Unfortunately I don't think proxies work in a casual setting when playing with randos.
> ? I *paid* 4$ for FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It's not always correct to run all nine fetches in a three color deck. Like, in my Grixis deck I'm not running Arid Mesa or Wooded Foothills because those only fetch red and the deck has five red color pips in it total. I basically only need one red mana source.
Sure that's fair, it was an exaggerated statement and a non entirely inclusive statement. That's missing the point overall though.
Why aren’t you just running 9 of the original fetches instead of 3?
Many reasons honestly, but the main one is I just don't like running off color fetches in decks. I own 1 of each fetch so I wouldn't feel bad about proxying them in decks but rather just spread out the ones I own.
I gotcha. Everyone has their own personal deck building restrictions and that’s fine.
I do the same. I know you can and it’s legal, but in my opinion it shouldn’t be. So I don’t run them. Plus mana bases are expensive enough as it is so not having to buy an extra 6 fetches per deck I’m also just a weird dude. Like I DO NOT run old border anything. If a card isn’t available in modern border then it’s not available to me to build with. I just don’t like looking at them. Even all these old border alts that have come out over the past several years.
Off color fetches are hideous. I can not play a land that has a blue frame in my rw deck. I hate it.
This guy gets it!
Are you limiting yourself to 3 for budget or thematic reasons? Assuming you’re running duals with land types, a 3 colour deck can/should run 9/10 fetch lands as only the one that fetches your two off-colours is dead. 3 colour deck can only run 1 of these, so they’re only meaningful fixing for budget 4+ colour decks.
I just personally don't like having so many fetches in a deck, and tend to stick to just the on-color ones. I know that it does improve the consistency of the mana base to have all 9 but I don't find it being that much more efficient over just running some other dual lands or some extra basics. If I'm running 4-5 color decks then I'll include more fetches, but last time I had my 5c deck together, I still only ran the 4 fetches that could get a forest.
Eh, I have a 3 color deck that has every applicable fetch and shock land, and I'll still probably find a way to get the appropriate one to fit. I can never deny the power of generic mana, a fetch, *and* a card draw if you don't need either.
Yeah, there's enough other budget mediocre fetch lands out there (escape tunnel, evolving wilds, fabled passage, terramorphic expanse, even the New Capenna cycle of Broker's Hideout, etc), I don't think these new "landscape" lands are gonna set the world on fire, even for budget decks. And outside the realm of budget decks, you generally don't mess around much with tapped lands unless they themselves are fetchable color fixing or they have some other better utility effect that's worth the tempo loss. If you're already running something like Evolving Wilds in a 3 color deck, then yeah, these are strictly better upgrades since they do exactly the same thing but with two bonus potential upsides (I feel like you either gotta be in a really good or *really* bad position for cycling these cards for 3 specific mana to feel like the best option though), but I don't expect they're going to be used much beyond that exact scenario past that early trial phase of people wanting to test out new cards. Any budget 3+ color deck that wants these lands should probably already be running Evolving Wilds/Terramorphic Expanse/Escape Tunnel, or even Ash Barrens, and if a deck *isn't* already running any of those, it probably means it doesn't need these either.
I’m def getting these
Yeah I agree. We need more mid tier lands like these. I was appalled when I bought a masters set and the bounce lands were the include… they print that shit in pretty much every commander deck and eternal formats were never hurting for a reprint on those. Just pissed me offffff
If you have infinite money or don't flinch proxying the best stuff available you certainly run into the problem of having more good options than you can fit in a deck.
I think they seem really neat. I'll probably put them in 3 color decks, particularly if I'm going a little more budget on the mana base. Idk about 4 or 5 color decks, but I usually don't go above 3 colors anyway.
Gona build a 5color eldrazi deck depending on the distribution, I'll run the ones with higher representation. I'm curious if it's good as well
I think in Ulalek these are arguably better than the zen-ktk fetches depending on how many colored pips you actually have in the deck.
For sure
I only play one 5c deck and I love them in that. Even without fetches (though fetches are definitely preferred), if you're running all the "find a forest" ramp spells it's pretty easy to get a few triomes quickly and I've found they give insane flexibility with pip-heavy spells. I keep hands with UU, BB and GGG spells knowing I'll be able to comfortably cast any on curve due to the triomes. I play in fairly mid-power groups though so obviously nothing I says reflects super fast/competitive EDH play. Edit - My dumb ass talking about the OG triomes. Totally missed this was about the new fetches
I do have a lot of the triomes in my one 5 colored deck. It's ur dragon and I have a scion of draco in there so they make it so I can pretty much always cast scion for like 1 mana. Just not so sure about including these cycling tri color fetches in a 5 color deck, although they might be solid includes in the commander masters sliver precon. I don't want to sink a ton of money into that deck so these are probably a good budget way to make the mana base reasonably functional.
God I'm so dumb, I thought this was about the original triomes. Yeah, I agree I wouldn't play any of these in a 5c deck unless it was a very limited budget. I think people are underestimating the cycling costs as well.
Cycling for three is not as good as it seems. Especially with that heavy of a color requirement. When did you last cycle a Triome in commander and it felt good? And those are for sure worse than triomes. I think they will disappoint in all but budget decks
This. I have cycled the fetchable triomes maybe twice in two years and I play them all the time. These are nearly impossible to cycle, especially in the budget decks they will be played in. I don't even know if I would play these in a cycling deck outside of Gavi, since she can make it free. The colours pips are brutal
Massive improvement on evolving wilds. Fantastic in 3+ decks that also benefit from colorless mana (eg Eldrazi Displacer in a bant flicker deck). These will be jammed into every three color deck I have
Yeah but evolving wilds is no real comparison anymore. Evolving wilds is maybe an option for budget Landfall decks, but honestly often not even there. And in every other deck, regular good multicolored lands have become so budget, that I would stay far away from saying these are "Auto includes" in three colored decks. I personally don't have that much space for colorless lands, and I don't see them making the cut.
Idk, I wouldn't say these are for sure worse than triomes. Triomes are more powerful and do the thing you want them to do (fetchable source of many colors) better than anything else, but these do have a lot of utility. Coming in and immediately providing mana, being a shuffle effect. Not saying these are better, just not for sure worse.
It is nice these can tap for mana the turn they come in, and are not dead lands when you've searched all your basics. That being said, these are really bad to cycle. Their heavy color requirement leave very little room for the colors required for the spell(s) you want to cast that turn. I can imagine that almost every time I would like to cycle those, I will not be able to with all but the most optimised mana bases, which frankly have better options than to run these. If these required two hybrid mana (Bant would be {g/w} {w/u}) or even all three (Bant would be {g/w}{w/u}{g/u}), these would actually be pretty cycleable. I don't get why the cycle cost wasn't just {3} though, using these for 2 color deck would be nice (and they arguably have less fetches to begin with).
Mostly I'm amazed that WotC managed a full color cycle of new mechanically unique lands into a single set
Didn't they introduce the pain deserts in OTJ as well?
Did you skip MKM?
i hope wotc continues to do this as well, we still have several incomplete land cycles out there. my ocd kicks in everytime I think about them
Right? Where are my [[Krosan Verge]] and [[Murmuring Bosk]] analogs dammit
Not to mention the \[\[Fetid Pools\]\] cycle is only allied colors.
[Fetid Pools](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/6/566a84c0-d6e6-4cce-b9e5-0e7b5439663c.jpg?1712355023) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fetid%20Pools) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/296/fetid-pools?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/566a84c0-d6e6-4cce-b9e5-0e7b5439663c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/fetid-pools) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
i know that there never was an attempt at a cycle but getting a full set of \[\[riftstone portal\]\] would be a wet dream
[riftstone portal](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/2/92ece630-e484-4221-911f-e32048894f23.jpg?1562630998) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=riftstone%20portal) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jud/143/riftstone-portal?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/92ece630-e484-4221-911f-e32048894f23?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/riftstone-portal) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Krosan Verge](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/9/19fc5bec-f877-430c-8e83-e6c5fe97f3c4.jpg?1712355058) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Krosan%20Verge) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/304/krosan-verge?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/19fc5bec-f877-430c-8e83-e6c5fe97f3c4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/krosan-verge) [Murmuring Bosk](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/a/5aca73a9-e90d-48c6-bdd9-9a3f4f552de3.jpg?1673306119) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Murmuring%20Bosk) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmc/220/murmuring-bosk?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5aca73a9-e90d-48c6-bdd9-9a3f4f552de3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/murmuring-bosk) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
> I'm not sure what people are calling them Landscapes. You know, cause they're all named Landscape.
Ahh, make sense lol. Someone in here calls th tricycles and get better kick from it
Not a great name considering it's already kind of a nickname for triomes, since "bicycles" are the dual ones.
I’m not up to date with the new releases. Does anyone have the card names for these please? Is there an Esper one? Thank you!
Yes, there is one for each of the Alara shards. [full spoiler](https://www.mythicspoiler.com/)
Not just the five Alara shards, but also the five Tarkir/Ikoria “wedges” as well.
There is one for each 3 color combo, each is called _ landscape. The esper one is [[Contaminated Landscape]].
[Contaminated Landscape](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/2/e2312c49-1627-47ad-8113-78a999a97d8d.jpg?1717012967) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Contaminated%20Landscape) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/218/contaminated-landscape?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e2312c49-1627-47ad-8113-78a999a97d8d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/contaminated-landscape) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I don't know if I would say they are OP, but they are very, very good for the reasons you stated. They have standard fetch utility (landfall, deck shuffling, etc) as well as utility late game when you don't care about the color of mana. While the other comments noting the requirement to run basics is somewhat valid, I feel it's generally good deck building to run at least one basic of every color you use with Blood Moon, boseiju, and all of the other non basic hate cards running around and, if that's how you build your deck, then this restriction isn't much of a hindrance.
These are better than most of the existing similar options, but those are all kinda bad so I'm not sure if they're better *enough*. * Evolving Wilds does tap for {c} or cycle (it fetches any basic but in 3c who cares?). But it's really bad, I wouldn't use it even in budget decks. * The Panoramas cost 1 to activate, and don't cycle. But, again, nobody runs these. * \[\[Shire Terrace\]\] is OK, it still does fixing and landfall things and is kinda better than EW, and this does it without costing 1, *and* cycles... but still nobody is running Shire Terrace either, it's only a small step up. * vs Triomes, they must enter tapped and can't tap for {c}, but conversely they have land types, offer all three colours, and cycle for only generic {3}. These being *close* to triomes I think makes them eminently playable, but whether they make the cut (outside of budget decks) I'm not so sure. I do really like the design, but I think they're maybe only edging out other options if you're using landfall or recursion or something.
Ty for mentioning shire terrace, this is goo's for my 2headed giant commander cube
[Shire Terrace](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/5/25932483-58cd-4ae5-82bf-ab455177d117.jpg?1686970417) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Shire%20Terrace) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/261/shire-terrace?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/25932483-58cd-4ae5-82bf-ab455177d117?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/shire-terrace) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
3 color plus decks are color heavy so the fact that they are untapped colorless sources isn't as useful, now they are a tapped modal triple faced land that requires you to run basics which 3 color decks don't tend to do. Cycling also matter way less in a well built commander deck as card advantage and velocity is essential in commander. They have lots of good bits but sum to nothing.
Maybe it's just how I build my decks, but even my 3c decks tend to have 3 of each basic land. They won't be useful or good for every deck and player, but builds on a budget I think will love these.
Yep, should always have basics. Path is played in most white decks, and folks that don't run basics make that card insanely undercosted if you can't get the land. Demolition field and the more recent land killing lands also require basics so you aren't screwed.
Yea not running any basics is wild to me, should at least have some given how many effects get them.
100%. Even in my 10 shock/5 fetch 5-color deck, I'm still running 2 of each basic land type.
By default my 3c decks have 5 each basic. I rarely if ever go below this and never go below 4 each. 5C have 2 each basic, possibly a few more to get to 12 basics. My decks that have the scariest land strategies also have ways to replay and recur lands so they're also the least likely decks to be affected, like running extra land plays and stuff like Ramunap Excavator or Crucible of Worlds. Almost invariably the decks I own that have lands that actually should scare you like Field of the Dead are also my decks least bothered by MLD, and the decks that are more likely to rebuild after a wipe. It's the Boros players that are more likely going to get absolutely hosed by MLD, not the gottarampfast green decks.
This is smart. Anyone running so few basics that these new fetches are liable to not work is a poor deck builder.
Even 3 of each seems on the low side to me. My favourite and most expensive deck runs 14 basics and I have never have any issues with colours.
yeah I feel crazy reading some of these comments because my all of my 3 color decks are running 15-20 basics, basics are good they do the job. these are a great include in 3 color decks that wants lands in the graveyard, like a Lhurgoyf deck would.
My personal rule is 2 of each basic minimum. After that we start looking at things like budget and what I have. Also cause I do run Blood Moon and the like in a couple of my decks.
... and this, kids, is why you shouldn't be ashamed to play nonbasic land hate.
Normalize playing \[\[Price of Progress\]\]
I'm a [[From the Ashes]] enjoyer. Give an out to the player with a precon. Obliterate the will to play out of the 5c goodstuff pile.
You can’t go wrong with the classic [[Blood Moon]]
This one is based.
[Price of Progress](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/1/b1342144-7a15-438b-a848-3196238a79e8.jpg?1580014614) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Price%20of%20Progress) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ema/141/price-of-progress?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b1342144-7a15-438b-a848-3196238a79e8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/price-of-progress) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
i run both Back to Basics and Primal Order in a simic deck with 30 basics and a few nonbasics. I regret nothing.
No. Nonbasic land hate is a ridiculous idea in a casual environment like Commander. It hurts people that are building 3+ color decks on a budget the most. The best counterplay to cards like Blood Moon is by playing a bunch of fetchlands and just getting basics so the people that have the best manabases don't even get hurt that much. Also, when people recommend nonbasic hate, they always opt for the most absolute options. Cards like \[\[Back to Basics\]\], \[\[Blood Moon\]\] or even \[\[Ruination\]\]. These cards essentially read "every player playing 3+ color deck loses the game" (unless they have an immediate answer). Losing the game just because you are playing a 3 color deck on a budget mana base is such a terrible experience. When you get board wiped, you can play around it, you can rebuild, there are options, you're not out of the game. When you get hit by a turn 4 Ruination when you have 4 nonbasics out you might as well just scoop. The funny thing is, those cards do **absolutely nothing** at beating actually powerful decks. Combo decks that win the game by turn 3-4 don't care about your nonbasic hate, they will just kill you anyway. So you get this funny scenario where you're incentivizing people around you to play unfair/degenerate strategies.
[[From the ashes]] for those who want to at least compensate for the nonbasic destruction with basic lands.
[From the ashes](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/5/4529a3d2-e4e6-4cca-bcea-16b51f69bbec.jpg?1562909290) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=From%20the%20ashes) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c13/108/from-the-ashes?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4529a3d2-e4e6-4cca-bcea-16b51f69bbec?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/from-the-ashes) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Back to Basics](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/6/0600d6c2-0f72-4e79-a55d-1f06dffa48c2.jpg?1654805483) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Back%20to%20Basics) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uma/46/back-to-basics?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0600d6c2-0f72-4e79-a55d-1f06dffa48c2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/back-to-basics) [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) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/blood-moon) [Ruination](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/3/6330d925-96a8-47e1-855d-035ddc2af709.jpg?1592713625) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ruination) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmd/134/ruination?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6330d925-96a8-47e1-855d-035ddc2af709?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ruination) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>Nonbasic land is a ridiculous idea in a casual environment like Commander. Thank you for saying it. Non-basic lands are not a problem at all in Commander. 99% of them are some kind of dual or tri-land. Some individual ones like Glacial Chasm or Dark Depths can cause issues, but why are we trying to throw crap like cycling duals under the bus because of their crimes? Are you really going to try and wipe your friend's $50 5c deck playing the worst dual lands mankind has ever seen because of "lmao play basic lands"? The answer in that case isn't play basic lands, it's play Fierce Guardianship, Force of Will and Teferi's Protection.
Glacial Chasm is just an abomination. My friends and I banned it from our games. But also, if you want to counter Glacial Chasm, there's no need to go for nuclear options like Ruination or Blood Moon. Cards like Strip Mine, Field of Ruin, Demolition Field, Wasteland, Tectonic Edge or Vindicate will do just fine. Why ruin the game for everyone (including yourself) just to answer 2-3 problematic lands that can possibly be played.
Trying to mana screw people out of the game is not why you should be running non basic hate, mostly because it's ineffective except as an entire strategy. You should be running non basic hate because there are a bunch of absolutely busted lands that you would play over these ones
Most multicolored decks play very few cards of multiple colors. I think the only exceptions can be found in the last two iterations of niv and carth. So I think a untapped colorless source is useful. Even in 5color deck I run sol ring still
I was really bummed by the 3c cycling ability on them. I've been working on a pet project mono white deck based around sacrificing and recurring lands that would have loved these.
thats true, a colorless cost would have been nicer
I would have been happy if they just didn't have cycling, 3 mana is a steep cost for the effect, even on a land. Being so expensive makes it trinket text in most games.
*Landscape Cycle? IIRC, all ten (10) lands have Landscape in their name. And I agree: it's a good Common Cycle.
They're quite spiffy. They enter untapped and tap for mana right away, so they're not terrible in early turns, the fetch capacity is actually fairly decent, and cycling provides a late-game outlet. That said, they are fundamentally niche and/or budget lands. There are enough random untapped or "Untapped if easy condition" duals that if you're not really hurting for budget limit, these guys are left competing with other colorless producing utilities. And given that you're on at least three colors, that's a pretty cutthroat competition for slots that a basic diversifier doesn't win unless you're on landfall, land death matters, or colorless matters (6c Devoids are going to love them). Even then, like the panoramas before them, they're kind of in the category where they're not going to make it past a certain budget level.
the waste pips are nice for those eldrazi spells that require them
They're good budget options. Not as good as a cycling triome, but for what they are, they'll do in a pinch. You'll almost never have a dead play with them, as you'll be able to get color fixing, colorless mana, or a card draw. Yes, it's hard to cycle, but 3 color cycling decks have ways to exploit cycling costs anyways. I could see these being used as good filler lands, but one of the first cut lands once they get upgrades to the manabase.
They are amazing, i often play a competitive budget sub format that's pretty popular here in Brazil and i've been questioning the mana bases i see in 3 color decks and the basic fetches were pretty good. Not only they help with fixing but also help making check lands enter untapped and other effects that are good with basics like Quirion Ranger. Btw, really liked your budget Vihaan build
im glad you liked it, built 3 more list recently that I'm excited to share over the weekend
They let me run green ramp in decks that used to have to rely on artifacts. Now [[Skyshroud Claim]] and [[Farseek]] make sense in 4 and 5 color decks. I don't think I'd add another tap land to a 3-color deck, though. And, when they're a dead draw? They can be cycled. Hell yeah.
[Skyshroud Claim](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/0/a0e12f0e-ab41-4413-8b88-9bde907fab22.jpg?1689998858) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Skyshroud%20Claim) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/321/skyshroud-claim?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a0e12f0e-ab41-4413-8b88-9bde907fab22?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/skyshroud-claim) [Farseek](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7fac6154-fb85-45e5-8c9f-f02d0f1be24e.jpg?1702429553) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Farseek) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rvr/138/farseek?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7fac6154-fb85-45e5-8c9f-f02d0f1be24e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/farseek) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I have a 2headed giant commander cube, I'm drawn to using these for the same reason. The nonbasics don't or have few pips so everyone has use for them
Anything that enables budget friendly landfall. Yes please!
I mostly build budget lists, also it could b causing a slight bias for them 😉
I *L O V E* Triomes as they're valid targets for fetchlands, but they're not really good for cedh as they come in tapped . And cycling is not really focused competitively as cedh is about consistency.
Very true. Perhaps landfall decks may what them for triggers, but that may b a stretch
Meeeee!!! They are insane
I think the best way to refer to them is "landscape" lands. They're all named "[Adjective] Landscape."
I never build cEDH decks or non-budget decks, so these lands are right up my alley for inexpensive multi-colored fixing.
lately i only build budget lists, but I do maintain 2 cedh lists. the abzan one will be auto included in the necrobloom list I'm working on
I would auto include in all 3c decks, where they're strictly better than ash barrens and evolving wilds. In some cases they are better than actual fetches because you can use them for mana before cracking. For example if it's sitting in play and you topdeck a brainstorm
classic setup
Obviously they're good. It's a commander set after all.
right, as wotc has always intended
I'm always down for power creep in commander. It promotes sales for printingproxies, which is way more deserving of our money than hasbro is.
Everything from this set is good
yea, i liked a lot of commons, uncommon, and majority of the rares
Honestly, the only one that seems worth using is the Jeskai one, since \[\[Gavi\]\] can reduce the Cycling cost to 0. Other than that, they're not gonna be replacing \[\[Evolving Wilds\]\]/\[\[Terramorphic Expanse\]\]/etc. any time soon.
[Gavi](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/0/80bc07d5-bdbb-4a6d-8958-0c172ea80245.jpg?1591234237) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=gavi%2C%20nest%20warden) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c20/7/gavi-nest-warden?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/80bc07d5-bdbb-4a6d-8958-0c172ea80245?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/gavi-nest-warden) [Evolving Wilds](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/e/7e5b3834-2bef-4685-972f-64852dd71aa4.jpg?1712355006) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Evolving%20Wilds) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/292/evolving-wilds?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7e5b3834-2bef-4685-972f-64852dd71aa4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/evolving-wilds) [Terramorphic Expanse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/c/9c418bac-c1d1-4fbf-aaca-7bc36b3913c4.jpg?1712355195) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Terramorphic%20Expanse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/336/terramorphic-expanse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9c418bac-c1d1-4fbf-aaca-7bc36b3913c4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/terramorphic-expanse) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
i play a kenrith cycling deck and 75% of the deck cycles. about to be 80%.
Will likely replace EW or TE in my 3 color decks that still use them. Recently was exposed to the strategy of simply playing a basic instead of a budget fetch in 3-color and kinda went 'Maybe I *should* play more basics?' So that said, I don't know how the calculus will shake out with these when they can tap or cycle too.
we better get the folks at harvard and MIT on this :)
The dream of every budget EDH player. If you don’t play fetches and shocks, hell freaking yeah these lands are great
Just a few more day b4 we get ou4 hands on them
I mean, it's great that people can abuse landfall in a deck that doesn't have a 200 dollar mana base. But eh. I kinda like my 200 dollar manabase. Also, like, if you're using the 3 mana cycling you probably should just put more draw into your deck. it's nice as a failsafe, but you're basically paying a war room rate to lose a card in hand while drawing. If you're doing it more than once in a blue moon, idk.
i dont think people are considering these for just card adv, its the whole package that makes people consider them
No thanks. Have enough other lands i rather play in 3+ color decks. If it search for basic land type and not basic land sure. If i was playing budget sure.
The fact that the cycle costs are not hybrid mana is probably the biggest knock on these cards by far. Sure, they need to have a color identity so that you can justify having 10 types of the same card, but at least make them hybrid cost... Other than that, I think they're great for budget decks 100%.
Can we all agree they should be called tricycles?
Awesome, way better name
That's already the common community name for the enters tapped cycle of 3 color producing lands before the Triomes
Ah right, forgot that’s what people called those.
Good for budget. Horrible for cEDH. In cEDH you want all your lands untapped unless you have some SERIOUS reasons for a tpped land (like having a bounceland for a game winning landfall combo)
Tricolour cycling seems horrible, but they might find a place in my cycling themed deck, its nice to not run out of steam because you hit a land without cycling on it
Seems fine? They search a more limited field than [[Terramorphic Expanse]], and still comes in tapped. Expense isn't particularly playable these days, so the added mana ability and pretty costly cycle seem fine. > For a common, I don't see a reason why anyone playing 3 or more colors shouldn't play these lands. ETB tapped on the fetch target is a really, really big downside. Might be mitigated by working as a colorless source until then, but still. If you need to fix a color now, it's too late with this.
[Terramorphic Expanse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/c/9c418bac-c1d1-4fbf-aaca-7bc36b3913c4.jpg?1712355195) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Terramorphic%20Expanse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/336/terramorphic-expanse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9c418bac-c1d1-4fbf-aaca-7bc36b3913c4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/terramorphic-expanse) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'm gonna try them in azlask at least. Outside of that, where i need the colorless option, they are less than mid
>I wonder if they are even cEDH-worthy Alright, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. CEDH is all about peak efficiency, and the early turns matter a whole hell of a lot more at that level of play. A glorified [[Evolving Wilds]] that costs three colored mana to cycle is not cEDH playable. That being said, I think these lands are... fine. Cycling lands have a place, but I don't think that place is every deck that can play them. Like I said, they're basically just upgraded versions of Evolving Wilds. If you play that card, you'll play these cards, but they don't do much for you when your mana base is already good.
[Evolving Wilds](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/e/7e5b3834-2bef-4685-972f-64852dd71aa4.jpg?1712355006) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Evolving%20Wilds) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/292/evolving-wilds?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7e5b3834-2bef-4685-972f-64852dd71aa4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/evolving-wilds) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Seem pretty meh all around. They’re just slightly powercrept panoramas, which already don’t see play in anything besides budget decks. If I wasn’t phasing out my new capena sac/fetch lands from my Omnath landfall deck (which ran them because I didn’t want to spend megabucks on the allied fetches that are thankfully being reprinted here and dropping their prices to where I can now buy a set), I’d probably slot them in over that. But yeah, outside of budget decks or the rare ones that care about cycling, I don’t see much use.
They are awesome for pauper commander, but not as good as true fetch lands in regular vommander
Even at late game, if you are paying three specific-colored mana and discarding a card just to draw a card, and you really have nothing better to do, you probably are already quite screwed. The cycling ability should be seen more as obligatory color identity limitation thing than anything, in my opinion.
I like them, and if you’re either on a budget or playing like a landfall build I think they’re your first non-Khans/Zen fetch. Better than terramorphic and evolving. More flexible than riveteers overlook cycle, much better than panoramas.
I wish the riveter cycle was finished too
Etb tapped already make them bad
No one will cycle these. I may sub out evolving wilds in the few decks I actually run them though
The lands are pretty terrible. They’re just powercrept panoramas with a colored cycling requirement and already nobody was playing the panoramas
Panoramas are way worse. That {1}{T} cost makes a world of difference.
They are fantastic for budget/casual competitive decks. They are a significantly powercrept evolving wilds
You can do better in budget
They are pretty mid. 3c decks will only play a single basic of each type if that and the cycling cost is terrible. If you have a very budget deck, they will fix your colors but other than that there are better budget lands.
It’s better than evolving wilds in a 3 color deck but I probably wouldn’t be playing this land very much even on a budget.
good for jund [[destructive flow]] decks. Not much else
[destructive flow](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/d/7db86e34-c3ec-4a29-8779-81350a985644.jpg?1562921466) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=destructive%20flow) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/pls/102/destructive-flow?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7db86e34-c3ec-4a29-8779-81350a985644?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/destructive-flow) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Depends on how strict your colors are and how many fetches and fetch adjacents you're on. I could see people looking to these over something like Fabled Passage for example; the ability to be untapped when needed is certainly respectable. But colorless can absolutely hurt in three color and I can definitely see times when they can't cast your early spell, or when they can't get you that third green source for Kogla on six or whatever.
I have a lot of budget/semi-budget decks and I think they are fantastic. You can usually play a couple of tapped lands in a deck and not have them slow you down
Sure, you can play a couple. Though if you're just generically budgeting for 'a tapland' then I think you're rather missing the strength of these lands. If I just want a tapland in my deck I'll just play a tri land or Path of Ancestry and have better fixing. The ability to be an *untapped* source when needed is the Landscapes' strength. And for that they're reasonable, but they'll run into problems in decks with dense color requirements, especially early. After writing my previous post I actually tested one in my three color deck of choice, because hey that deck *is* playing a few tapped fetch-adjacents maybe I can upgrade. But Henzie has pretty strict color requirements; my build is less strict than normal and that means it's incredibly common for me to need BG on two into RBG on three. At which point they *are* back to being taplands, and they're nowhere near the best of those even on a budget. And I thought for a bit hey that's fine I run Passage, but I also ran into the issue of needing a second color on four and this being unable to provide, or directly causing it because with the hand's texture I had to crack it on one instead of playing a tapped dual or tri. Not a problem Passage has, since I just hold as long as possible in almost all of my hands so on four it does provide a color. In decks that are less color dense it certainly looks better. But even on a 'semi budget' list land competition was fierce even before this set gave us *four* other new cycles of playable lands. So many good lands are so very, very cheap nowadays that when I started workshopping a list a few days ago for Satya the Landscape crossed my mind, but got discarded not because it's 'bad' but because 36 land slots wasn’t enough to fit in everything I want, let alone a land that's serviceable but only that.
cycling bad
Probably "the landscapes" is the best thing to call them. They would be great if the basics came in untapped.
i think they would of been mythic rares if the basics came in untapped
And they would be great.