Manlands would also be an interesting design space for fortifications, and would strongly justify the equipment effect. In-fact, any type-change would be good and get away from concerns about Ponza coming back in modern play.
i think it would be cool if it gave a keyword and some states depending on what basic land types it has. Making a colorless card that plays different in different colors, have some neat interactions with lands with multiple types like triomes and everywhere tokens, and would justify the ability to change which land it is equipped to.
Bruh! This is a house in the desert landfall decks, or just landfall deck in general as they tend to have land recursion. ((Not overpowered, just good ways to use)) @@NicksLotus
Regarding lands at risk of being destroyed, I can actually think of artifact lands, for decks where you want to get as many artifacts in play as possible. Such lands can be at risk of artifact board wipes, so I actually think there could be a place there. I also think it could be some flavour win in fortifying an already artifact land, or maybe turns a land into an artifact land. The effects can be general artifact stuff, like token creation or ramp that can only be used to on artifacts.
Love that artifact land take on it. Turning lands into artifacts could be an awesome mechanic, especially if you could attach it to anyones lands 🤔. Totally agree that there could be token versions , ramp for artifacts. Maybe something like "Myr's in the Walls" a fortification that creates myr tokens when you use the land for artifacts.
I think what they mean is that it would be pretty hard to build a set where Fortifications were a substantial part of the set's mechanics. For the sake of limited you'd probably want your stone rains in that kind of set to have multiple ways to tempo against someone putting a few fortifications on the same land. And you'd have to support it with all kinds of common/uncommon rarity manlands and utility lands. It might be a nightmare to design such a set on their end that would be cromulent with drafting. For Seacoast Arches, I think for what you're trying to do, you want to just have "Fortify Tapped Land (3)" instead of having an ability that taps down the land.
That is fair , but just including artifact removal at the rate they are, and including the slower land removal they still include in sets like [Demolition Field] From foundations , or [Boom Box] from outlaws, is more than enough to handle these fortifications in my opinion. The point about stacking fortifications is a very good one I didn't think about though. Maybe switching the wording up to a 1 per land deal? like i said land removal doesn't even deal with the fortification. Equipment's, you can make the argument for it being equally valuable to remove the creature or the equipment, as they will need to spend mana not only for a creature but also for the equip cost. There is, for all intents and purposes, infinite lands to keep fortifying to , so artifact removal just is the way to deal with these cards. I love that wording for seacost! Much better!
@@NicksLotus If most fortifications have additional tap abilities, then stacking the fortifications all on one land would be a poor choice generally speaking. But yes, artifact removal is the best option just in general, barring mass creature removal from an equipment stand point.
I pulled both Darksteel Garrison and Dryad Arbor in the _Future Sight_ prerelease. It was surprisingly hard for people to get rid of an indestructible attacker that just pumps itself on attack each turn.
Those cards are super interesting and would be cool to play. However, I feel like you missed the point of Rosewaters message about land destruction. Because when your opponent decides to move an equipment onto a creature, its also pretty common to just destroy the creature that was being targeted, because they lose the mana and potentially make them lose that mana again if you have more removal. A similar argument could be made regarding fortify. You opponent goes to fortify a land, you ghost quarter or strip mine it. I think that's the angle rosewater is coming from when he says its not interesting. I still love the ideas you had, and would like wizards to explore them more.
i might be out of the loop here, but do people really play land destruction other than *MAYBE* a strip mine or demo-field? 1 in 100? Creature removal is WAAAAY more prevalent, and with new commanders like Black Panther, turning lands into creatures is around more than ever. Compared to how many land destruction cards were printed in the first 10 years to the last 20 is abysmal, and I think this fortification isn't even close to strong enough to even consider running more when every other removal option is not only usable, but widely available. And Power Creep exists with 90% of removal nowadays. Nick might be on to something here 🥸
@@globbaslobbaYou brushed right up next to the point and then missed it. The point is that once you start fortifying lands on a regular basis, the meta will demand more land destruction, and land destruction is not a fun meta to be in. Imagine you aren't even playing fortify cards, but your opponent is prepared to play against it and destroys your lands anyway because they have the cards to do it. So now non-land mana sources become even more popular, and the rabbit hole gets worse and worse. You have to look at the cause and effect of how players reacting to a mechanic can ruin the game, not just how that mechanic could initially work.
@@RENEG4DE4NGEL so you're saying you would run land destruction? were still talking about 1 in 100 cards. say someone is running full fortify, do you have enough to actually compete? make a land destruction deck SPECIFICALLY for a fortify would just be a huge dick move and probably lose you some friends/game pod. Also when we're talking about shifting the Meta, balance is the key. Just dont make fortify strong enough to warrant land destruction, and the point i made before is even if it DID get strong enough, theres still just artifact removal. done and done, no land destruction needed UNLESS its an entire deck made on fortify. in that case you're a major baller making a cool deck that isn't some turn 2 win BS. Balance.
Wow, I honestly didn't even know this mechanic existed and totally agree with the video. It seems very cool and you could have all kinds of land effects happen. They could even be more powerful too since they're so easy to destroy. Artifact gotta be the 2nd easiest thing to destroy after creature. Could have different cool flavors too like reshaping the land (green) to reinforcing it to harden it against dragons (red or white) to enchanting it and warding it against intruders or something (blue or black)
There's honestly a lot of design space here. Fortified land is a 0/4 colorless wall creature in addition to its other card types. ... Fortified land loses all mana abilities and has "Tap: Untap target attacking creature. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by that creature this turn." Turn it into a maze of ith. ... Fortify mountain Whenever fortified mountain is tapped for mana, it deals 1 damage to any target. ... Fortify plains Whenever fortified plains is tapped for mana, you gain 1 life. ... Fortify island Whenever fortified island is tapped for mana, scry 2. ... Fortify forest Whenever fortified forest is tapped for mana, target creature you control gets +1/+1 and gains trample until end of turn. ... Fortify swamp Whenever fortified swamp is tapped for mana, target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn and its controller loses 1 life. ... Fortified land has indestructible and "Whenever this creature attacks, it deals 2 damage to any target." Play it in a deck where you animate your lands, but it doesn't do anything special on its own.
I feel like giving new mana abilities is redundant, you could just add triggers to the mana use, something like pyromancer goggles: "Whenever mana produced by fortified land is spent on a red istant or sorcery, copy that spell"; Or you could use replacements like on Contamination: "Whenever fortified land is tapped for mana, it produces WUBRG instead of it's normal type and ammount"; And last thing just regular mana triggered abilities like Mana Flare: "Whenever fortified land is tapped for mana, add one mana of any type this land could produce"
I think the "seacoast archways" don't work the way you want them to. As they are, they would put a trigger on the stack to tap the land you attach them to, you could then respond to that trigger by tapping the land for blue mana equal to the number of artifacts. You would have to change it into something like: "whenever cardname targets a land tap that land"
they could make a fortification that uses magics coolest black border mechanic that has never been printed on a (black border) card. tap equipped land to assemble a contraption.
Maybe they should provide the effect (like the instant sorcery copying) to mana made by the land, instead of giving it an extra mana ability? This would open up new pathways, as it would synergize with lands that tap for 2, and even more with (the normally unplayable) storage lands
If Battles ever come back, heck, it feels like at least for limited a fortification could add counters to a battle as a side-effect. I know, it's not much, but it's a flavor win.
@@purplebunz Basically they renamed Kaladesh to Avishkar because it translates to something racist among some of the dialects of Hindi. So they're renaming it. And also saying why it's renamed that in-universe. I don't really care, personally, but that's the story. WOTC posted a news article about it recently.
Manlands would also be an interesting design space for fortifications, and would strongly justify the equipment effect. In-fact, any type-change would be good and get away from concerns about Ponza coming back in modern play.
what is the concern with Ponza?
i think it would be cool if it gave a keyword and some states depending on what basic land types it has. Making a colorless card that plays different in different colors, have some neat interactions with lands with multiple types like triomes and everywhere tokens, and would justify the ability to change which land it is equipped to.
skullclamp fortification would be sick
That would be super interesting! Something like "Whenever fortified land is tapped for mana, sacrifice the land its attached to and draw 2 cards"
Bruh! This is a house in the desert landfall decks, or just landfall deck in general as they tend to have land recursion. ((Not overpowered, just good ways to use)) @@NicksLotus
You keep saying you're not a designer, but your designs are fantastic!
Interesting take that i totally agree with you. Hope someone in the wizard will land on this video😂
Regarding lands at risk of being destroyed, I can actually think of artifact lands, for decks where you want to get as many artifacts in play as possible. Such lands can be at risk of artifact board wipes, so I actually think there could be a place there. I also think it could be some flavour win in fortifying an already artifact land, or maybe turns a land into an artifact land. The effects can be general artifact stuff, like token creation or ramp that can only be used to on artifacts.
Love that artifact land take on it. Turning lands into artifacts could be an awesome mechanic, especially if you could attach it to anyones lands 🤔. Totally agree that there could be token versions , ramp for artifacts. Maybe something like "Myr's in the Walls" a fortification that creates myr tokens when you use the land for artifacts.
I think what they mean is that it would be pretty hard to build a set where Fortifications were a substantial part of the set's mechanics. For the sake of limited you'd probably want your stone rains in that kind of set to have multiple ways to tempo against someone putting a few fortifications on the same land. And you'd have to support it with all kinds of common/uncommon rarity manlands and utility lands. It might be a nightmare to design such a set on their end that would be cromulent with drafting.
For Seacoast Arches, I think for what you're trying to do, you want to just have "Fortify Tapped Land (3)" instead of having an ability that taps down the land.
That is fair , but just including artifact removal at the rate they are, and including the slower land removal they still include in sets like [Demolition Field] From foundations , or [Boom Box] from outlaws, is more than enough to handle these fortifications in my opinion. The point about stacking fortifications is a very good one I didn't think about though. Maybe switching the wording up to a 1 per land deal? like i said land removal doesn't even deal with the fortification. Equipment's, you can make the argument for it being equally valuable to remove the creature or the equipment, as they will need to spend mana not only for a creature but also for the equip cost. There is, for all intents and purposes, infinite lands to keep fortifying to , so artifact removal just is the way to deal with these cards.
I love that wording for seacost! Much better!
@@NicksLotus If most fortifications have additional tap abilities, then stacking the fortifications all on one land would be a poor choice generally speaking. But yes, artifact removal is the best option just in general, barring mass creature removal from an equipment stand point.
@@anentity3606 Truee!!!! Yeah this isnt a good design space my ass lol
Darksteel Garrison is pretty cool together with Cacophodon and the black land aura that allows you to tap the land to ping everything for 1
I pulled both Darksteel Garrison and Dryad Arbor in the _Future Sight_ prerelease.
It was surprisingly hard for people to get rid of an indestructible attacker that just pumps itself on attack each turn.
5:53 I mean, it’s a 6 mana investment to get it cast and fortified. Fairly balanced.
Those cards are super interesting and would be cool to play. However, I feel like you missed the point of Rosewaters message about land destruction. Because when your opponent decides to move an equipment onto a creature, its also pretty common to just destroy the creature that was being targeted, because they lose the mana and potentially make them lose that mana again if you have more removal. A similar argument could be made regarding fortify. You opponent goes to fortify a land, you ghost quarter or strip mine it. I think that's the angle rosewater is coming from when he says its not interesting. I still love the ideas you had, and would like wizards to explore them more.
i might be out of the loop here, but do people really play land destruction other than *MAYBE* a strip mine or demo-field? 1 in 100?
Creature removal is WAAAAY more prevalent, and with new commanders like Black Panther, turning lands into creatures is around more than ever.
Compared to how many land destruction cards were printed in the first 10 years to the last 20 is abysmal, and I think this fortification isn't even close to strong enough to even consider running more when every other removal option is not only usable, but widely available. And Power Creep exists with 90% of removal nowadays.
Nick might be on to something here 🥸
@@globbaslobbaYou brushed right up next to the point and then missed it. The point is that once you start fortifying lands on a regular basis, the meta will demand more land destruction, and land destruction is not a fun meta to be in. Imagine you aren't even playing fortify cards, but your opponent is prepared to play against it and destroys your lands anyway because they have the cards to do it. So now non-land mana sources become even more popular, and the rabbit hole gets worse and worse.
You have to look at the cause and effect of how players reacting to a mechanic can ruin the game, not just how that mechanic could initially work.
@@RENEG4DE4NGEL so you're saying you would run land destruction?
were still talking about 1 in 100 cards. say someone is running full fortify, do you have enough to actually compete?
make a land destruction deck SPECIFICALLY for a fortify would just be a huge dick move and probably lose you some friends/game pod.
Also when we're talking about shifting the Meta, balance is the key. Just dont make fortify strong enough to warrant land destruction, and the point i made before is even if it DID get strong enough, theres still just artifact removal. done and done, no land destruction needed UNLESS its an entire deck made on fortify. in that case you're a major baller making a cool deck that isn't some turn 2 win BS.
Balance.
Wow, I honestly didn't even know this mechanic existed and totally agree with the video. It seems very cool and you could have all kinds of land effects happen. They could even be more powerful too since they're so easy to destroy. Artifact gotta be the 2nd easiest thing to destroy after creature. Could have different cool flavors too like reshaping the land (green) to reinforcing it to harden it against dragons (red or white) to enchanting it and warding it against intruders or something (blue or black)
You ask "What if instead of giving it +1/+1 until end of turn...", when the abilty actually puts a +1/+1/ counter on target creature.
The original "Darksteel" one does until end of turn
There's honestly a lot of design space here.
Fortified land is a 0/4 colorless wall creature in addition to its other card types.
...
Fortified land loses all mana abilities and has "Tap: Untap target attacking creature. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by that creature this turn."
Turn it into a maze of ith.
...
Fortify mountain
Whenever fortified mountain is tapped for mana, it deals 1 damage to any target.
...
Fortify plains
Whenever fortified plains is tapped for mana, you gain 1 life.
...
Fortify island
Whenever fortified island is tapped for mana, scry 2.
...
Fortify forest
Whenever fortified forest is tapped for mana, target creature you control gets +1/+1 and gains trample until end of turn.
...
Fortify swamp
Whenever fortified swamp is tapped for mana, target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn and its controller loses 1 life.
...
Fortified land has indestructible and "Whenever this creature attacks, it deals 2 damage to any target."
Play it in a deck where you animate your lands, but it doesn't do anything special on its own.
I feel like giving new mana abilities is redundant, you could just add triggers to the mana use, something like pyromancer goggles:
"Whenever mana produced by fortified land is spent on a red istant or sorcery, copy that spell";
Or you could use replacements like on Contamination:
"Whenever fortified land is tapped for mana, it produces WUBRG instead of it's normal type and ammount";
And last thing just regular mana triggered abilities like
Mana Flare:
"Whenever fortified land is tapped for mana, add one mana of any type this land could produce"
And this are Just ideas for mana manipulation, there are many more things you can do
Love this idea for banned or op lands
I think the "seacoast archways" don't work the way you want them to. As they are, they would put a trigger on the stack to tap the land you attach them to, you could then respond to that trigger by tapping the land for blue mana equal to the number of artifacts. You would have to change it into something like: "whenever cardname targets a land tap that land"
Good catch
(It works)
@@double2helix would be great if you could elaborate on that with the specific rules interactions, so everyone can learn something
I like the keyword wizardcycling with only 2 cards. Step Through(mh2)and Vedalken Æthermage(futuresight)
Yo this is such a cool avenue to explore.
Hopefully your idea gets noticed by wizards
they could make a fortification that uses magics coolest black border mechanic that has never been printed on a (black border) card. tap equipped land to assemble a contraption.
Maybe they should provide the effect (like the instant sorcery copying) to mana made by the land, instead of giving it an extra mana ability?
This would open up new pathways, as it would synergize with lands that tap for 2, and even more with (the normally unplayable) storage lands
Love that!
If Battles ever come back, heck, it feels like at least for limited a fortification could add counters to a battle as a side-effect. I know, it's not much, but it's a flavor win.
i'd respect your ideas more if it weren't for the funko pops in the back
xD , They were a gift...
@@NicksLotus counter target lie
Another banger
Yeah I don't get it either, it's just land equipment and we already have plenty of land auras like utopia sprawl.
Since Kaladesh is deadnamed I wonder what the Trans of Avishkar will bring us. 🤔
Kaladesh not going anywhere 😂
I'll never stop saying Tribal, and I'll never stop saying Kaladesh.
What?
Cry harder
@@purplebunz Basically they renamed Kaladesh to Avishkar because it translates to something racist among some of the dialects of Hindi. So they're renaming it. And also saying why it's renamed that in-universe. I don't really care, personally, but that's the story. WOTC posted a news article about it recently.