An attempt at balanced Snow dual-lands.

[Krishnath]

I am always trying to make fetchable dual lands that are on par with the shocklands but different. The various varieties that WotC have made since the Shock lands have given me more examples to use as benchmarks for their power level. The idea is to create duals that would be played in standard/modern as well as Commander. I am not that worried about the other eternal formats, as they have the dual lands covered good between the originals and the shocks.

Anyway, on to the card.

Wooded Esker
Snow Land - Mountain Forest (Rare)
(T: Add R or G.)
Wooded Esker enters the battlefield tapped unless you control two or more other snow lands.


Now, I am fearing that the drawback may be a wee bit to restrictive, and I am seriously weighing whether or not to change "two other snow lands" to "two other snow permanents" to be a little less restrictive. Thoughts?

The other nine in the cycle would be:

Field of Glory (Red-White)
Gloomy Depths (Blue-Black)
Highland Mire (Black-Red)
Hot Springs (Blue-Red)
Moss-Covered Fen (Black-Green)
Riverside Willows (Green-Blue)
Soft Fields (Green-White)
Unhallowed Battlefield (White-Black)
Western Shore (White-Blue)

(Guess the inspiration, you get an imaginary cookie if you guess right.)


As always, comments, critiques, and criticisms are welcome.

Edit: Clarified the text to show that it counts two *or* more other snow lands.

[user_938036]

It's an interesting twist on the Cinder Glade cycle. However, there is a huge difference between the two sets of cards. Fetching a Cinder Glade tapped was a real cost because it didn't help you untap future ones; while your version encourages fetching tapped ones early if you don't need them because after the first two all future ones are untapped. I wouldn't say that makes them too strong but definitely strong enough so I wouldn't consider changing it to snow permanent.

[Krishnath]

It's an interesting twist on the Cinder Glade cycle. However, there is a huge difference between the two sets of cards. Fetching a Cinder Glade tapped was a real cost because it didn't help you untap future ones; while your version encourages fetching tapped ones early if you don't need them because after the first two all future ones are untapped. I wouldn't say that makes them too strong but definitely strong enough so I wouldn't consider changing it to snow permanent.

See that is what I was thinking when I designed them, but then I started second-guessing myself. It wouldn't really be an issue in Commander, but in standard/modern it could be a real issue.

[SecretInfiltrator]

So, is this meant to be "exactly two" or "two or more"?

Well, I feel the problem with snow lands is always that snow basic lands exist and are so much preferable to nonsnow basic lands though not strictly better. Hence I'd suggest adding some tension to this design and imitate Seachrome Coast and cycle rather than Prairie Stream and cycle. If this "enters the battlefield tapped unless you control two or fewer other snow lands", the cards suddenly balance themselves by getting worse in multiples. The first playset is almost free - better than Seachrome Coast even, so maybe "one or fewer"? Maybe more Glacial Fortress: "if you control another snow Plains or another snow Island".

They are certainly not the snow dual lands you are searching for for your snow deck, but still strictly better than the existing snow dual lands that always ETBT.

[Krishnath]

So, is this meant to be "exactly two" or "two or more"?

Well, I feel the problem with snow lands is always that snow basic lands exist and are so much preferable to nonsnow basic lands though not strictly better. Hence I'd suggest adding some tension to this design and imitate Seachrome Coast and cycle rather than Prairie Stream and cycle. If this "enters the battlefield tapped unless you control two or fewer other snow lands", the cards suddenly balance themselves by getting worse in multiples. The first playset is almost free - better than Seachrome Coast even, so maybe "one or fewer"? Maybe more Glacial Fortress: "if you control another snow Plains or another snow Island".

They are certainly not the snow dual lands you are searching for for your snow deck, but still strictly better than the existing snow dual lands that always ETBT.

Well, I am by no means an expert when it comes to things counting other things, but cards that say "unless you control X" don't care if you have more than X, as long as you have X. I see no difference here. But it should probably have an "or more." tacked on to it.
Unlike the Prairie Stream cycle that only counts basics, this counts any snow land, which can make a huge difference in a snow deck. And the reason I didn't mimic Seachrome Coast and its siblings is because I wanted a card that is *Worse* in Vintage/Legacy, not on par with the original duals in that format. Basically, I wanted something there is of similar power level as the shock lands, but not as good as the originals. Looking for other snow lands to avoid coming into play tapped is a good way to make them relevant in post 8th edition formats, without them breaking older formats. Using the Seachrome Coast drawback, suddenly makes them number 5-6 of a crucial dual land in vintage/legacy, because them coming into play untapped unless you control 2 or more other snow lands isn't a drawback if you only run 2 snow lands in your deck. They were designed to be balanced in standard/modern/commander *without* breaking Vintage/Legacy which is a lot harder than it sounds unless you nerf the cards to hell and back.