There seem to be a fair number of pro-enchantment partisans posting arguments for You Make The Card 4, so I thought I would weigh in on the other side. What follows are a few reasons why I am in favor of choosing Land this time around.
1. Utility
By nature, Lands are colorless. (I'm ignoring you, Dryad Arbor, for being the exception that proves oh-so-many rules.) This simple fact means that a well-designed land can go in, and be usable by, any deck. By well-designed, I personally mean "does not create a color of mana" as well as "does not require colored mana to activate." (There's a huge design space available for land abilities using a colorless activation, so I see no reason why we should hamstring ourselves by requiring colored mana input.) A land that produces colorless and has a colorless effect with enough utility could theoretically be played my almost any deck, as the opportunity cost of playing it is only another land and doesn't require warping your mana base.
Enchantments, on the other hand, have to have a color and thus a mana cost requiring color. It doesn't take genius to figure out that there are many decks out there, be they Commander, Standard or other, that will not be able to take advantage of said enchantment, no matter how cool it is. This is not a huge problem in and of itself, as Magic without colored spells would be dull indeed, however if we are trying to satisfy as many people as possible then allowing any deck to use the designed card is a wise path indeed. Just look at Crucible of Worlds; it's the most popular previous YMTC winner partly because any deck can play it.
2. Playability
I asked a friend yesterday if he was voting in YMTC4. His answer? "No, I don't want another Vanish into Memory on my conscience." The failure of YMTC3's progeny likely held back the YMTC program for many years. The card is too hard to use profitably, between its double-colored mana requirement, relatively high CMC (4), and requirement that you have a creature that makes the effect worthwhile (i.e. something with high power and low toughness, and oh by the way, you better hope they don't kill that creature in response).
I believe that choosing Enchantment could lead us down the dark path towards another Vanish into Memory. While it's certainly possible that the process will result in a powerful, flavorful, constructed-playable staple, it's also possible that the mana cost will be too large, or require too many colors, or that the effect won't be potent enough to justify including the card in a deck. I argue that choosing enchantment is the higher variance choice; we could end up with something cool, but we could also end up with something horrible.
These are problems that don't exist for a land card. Since lands require no mana and produce mana themselves, there's a very small hurdle to jump to ensure that the card sees play in various formats. As stated previously, the effect need only be worthwhile enough to replace another land in the deck. While land might have a lower "top-end" than enchantment, it's also less likely to be relegated to the junk bin. I submit that the latter fate is the worst possible outcome for YMTC4, which is why I advocate in favor of land.
3. Design Space
This is an argument often used for enchantments, but I think the argument cuts both ways. There are many things that lands can do that enchantments cannot. Ignoring alternate futures, of course, enchantments do not tap. This means there are many effects that can't be printed on enchantments. Most activated abilities are off limits, for instance.
But enchantments don't have a monopoly on global effects, either. Just look at cards like Glacial Chasm, Cathedral of War, and The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale for lands with interesting non-activated abilities. Enchantments do this better, yes, but it's not their sole domain.
4. Lands are Special!
Because of land's special nature, they can perform a vital role in shaping and balancing constructed formats. They can't be countered, and many discard spells miss them as well. When Wizards R&D wanted a card to punish counterspells in the post-Innistrad Standard environment, they created a land (Cavern of Souls). Want a card to hurt Reanimator and recursion-type decks that can't be hit by targeted discard? Bojuka Bog is just the card for you! Although I would not expect the design for a YMTC land to be used to these ends, the mere possibility is intriguing. As an example, how about a land that makes your other lands indestructible, for those pesky land destruction decks?
The mere fact that lands are immune to most countermeasure make them an attractive option for YMTC4. What's the point of designing a fun, flavorful card, only to have it stripped out of your hand, or countered, or destroyed prior to using it?
In conclusion, I believe land is the best choice for YMTC4. It has a more reasonable likelihood of resulting in a playable card, has access to interesting design space, can be used by more decks, and can be more reliably used within a given game. Choosing enchantment could result in a home run, but it could also result in another Vanish to Memory, and if we as a community wish to continue the YMTC program, that's an outcome we simply can't afford.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Crucible is the most popular of the previous 3 because it is the most powerful. Period. It has nothing to do with what color it is (or isn't).
Also, Forgotten Ancient (as an example) can go really go in any green deck; Crucible can only really go in a deck that is abusing graveyard recursion of lands.
However, wizards won't print a powerful land or anything worth playing, you'll get something equivalent to Thespians stage. Powerful lands aren't made anymore because there are very few ways to interact with lands these days in any effective capacity.
Making a land means losing the chance to do cool things with the card.
1. Crucible of Worlds is not the most popular because it can go in any deck, to the contrary, it's only useful in a very, VERY small amount of decks. A huge percentage of casual players don't happen to have fetch lands, and fetch lands alone aren't a reason to use it in competitive play, meaning that only people playing decks specifically meant to take advantage of it can use it. This is an extremely basic concept, honestly. You discredit yourself to suggest that colourless = playable everywhere. That being said, widespread usability is not a requirement of YMTC. It's a nice bonus, at best.
2. No, just no. There are many, many completely junk lands. It's not hard to make a bad land. We are just as likely to end up with a bad card regardless of what we pick. This argument just reeks of bias.
3. Enchantments do have more design space than lands, this is something that R&D acknowledges and to state otherwise is just willful ignorance. That being said, amount of design space is completely and totally irrelevant here. There is more than sufficient design space left in Magic to both create both an interesting and unique new enchantment and an interesting and unique new land, as it turns out.
4. Enchantments are special, too. There are pros and cons to both. You can't just list the pros to lands and ignore the cons, that's completely retarded. For example, the fact that there are so few countermeasures against lands generally makes them obnoxious to play against when they make their way into every Standard deck (Cavern of Souls, for example).
I'm voting for lands myself, but your arguments for them are genuinely terrible.
To anonymous:
1. But you literally CAN play crucible in every deck. You can't play colored spells in any EDH deck. Maybe your deck won't be optimized for crucible, but if your playgroup likes LD, that makes it more likely. Or if you pick up a couple fetchlands, or play evolving wilds/terramorphic expanse, etc.
2. Completely disagree here. If you have a land which comes into play untapped, adds 1 to your mana pool, and has a bonus ability, it's automatically way more playable than any number of bad enchantments. As I've said, the opportunity cost is low.
3. My argument was not that lands have more design space, but that this was a common argument FOR enchantments when there is plenty of fertile design space for both.
4. Enchantments are not special like lands are special, sorry. That's why Mark Rosewater said they are the most expendable of the current spell types--because they do many of the same things as artifacts. They can be countered, they have color, and so on like most other spells in Magic. You can play as many in a turn as you want. Lands do not have these rules/restrictions, they are truly unique in terms of the core rules of the game.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I would prefer you use a public name if you want an honest back-and-forth discussion.
Thanks,
Mark
Post a Comment