The Basics of Basic Land Subtypes?

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
This is a two part question:
1. Are there any rules or guidelines that govern the updating of the CR when a new mechanic/subtype/etc is created by a new set? The specific question has to do with the possible creation of a new basic land type and how would we know if it was a basic land type or just a new subtype on a basic land that wasn't actually a basic land type.

2. Am I correct in understanding that, despite the CR listing 10 basic land names (Forest, Island, Mountain, Plains, Swamp, Snow-Covered Forest,
Snow-Covered Island, Snow-Covered Mountain, Snow-Covered Plains, and Snow-Covered Swamp), there are only five basic land types because putting Snow-Covered in front of a basic land type still leaves it as one of the five basic land types and not a separate basic land type? I think some folks are getting confused between a basic land type and the name of the basic land card.

If any of that isn't clear, I'll try to make more sense.

Edit: I goofed in the title; it should say The Basics of Basic Land Types.
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
1: The comp rules are updated by WotC every time a set is released to include any new types, super types, sub-types, ability words, key words, etc. I don't see an actual question there, but I hope what you ment to ask was answered above.

2: The basic land types are "Forest, Plains, Island, Swamp, and Mountain", Snow is a super-type (like legendary or basic).

A basic land is a card with the type land and the super type basic, any other types, super types, and/or sub types that card has don't change the fact that it is a basic land.

City of Glass
Legendary Tribal Basic Snow World Land - Plains Island Swamp Mountain Forest Avatar
City of Glass comes into play tapped.
: City of Glass becomes a 5/5 creature until end of turn. It's still a land.

City of Glass would be a basic land and you could run any number of them in a deck.

205.4. Supertypes

205.4a A card can also have one or more supertypes. These are printed directly before its card types. If an object’s card types or subtypes change, any supertypes it has are kept, although they may not be relevant to the new card type.

205.4b Any land with the supertype “basic” is a basic land. Any land that doesn’t have this supertype is a nonbasic land.
Example: Note that cards printed in sets prior to the Eighth Edition core set didn’t use the word “basic” to indicate a basic land. Cards from those sets with the following names are basic lands: Forest, Island, Mountain, Plains, Swamp, Snow-Covered Forest, Snow-Covered Island, Snow-Covered Mountain, Snow-Covered Plains, and Snow-Covered Swamp.

and
212.6g The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has an intrinsic ability to produce colored mana. (See rule 406, “Mana Abilities.”) The land is treated as if its text box included, “{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain text or the card has no text box. Plains produce white mana; Islands, blue; Swamps, black; Mountains, red; and Forests, green.

As a final note:
Unrelenting Rats
Basic Creature - Rats
~'s power and toughness are equal to the number of rats in play.
*/*

Is Basic, but it isn't a basic land and you can only run 4 of them in a deck (the exemption is ONLY for basic lands). However if you somehow made it a land while it was in play then it would be a basic land and you couldn't destroy it with something that said to destroy target non-basic land.
As an example I am going to list some changes, the below is edited and is not official rules.
212.6g The basic land types are Cave, Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has an intrinsic ability to produce colored mana. (See rule 406, “Mana Abilities.”) The land is treated as if its text box included, “{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain text or the card has no text box. Caves produce colorless mana; Plains, white; Islands, blue; Swamps, black; Mountains, red; and Forests, green.

Deep Cavern
Land - Cave

Deep Cavern would be a NON-Basic land that had a basic land type and the ability to tap for colorless mana.

Cave
Basic Land - Cave

Cave on the other hand would be a Basic Land that had a basic type and the ability to tap for colorless mana.

Deeper Cavern
Basic Land - Lair

Deeper Cavern would be a Basic Land that couldn't tap for mana and had no basic land type.
1: The comp rules are updated by WotC every time a set is released to include any new types, super types, sub-types, ability words, key words, etc. I don't see an actual question there, but I hope what you ment to ask was answered above.

Someone on another thread feels that he needs more proof that if Cave from MaRo's Monday article were printed, Cave (as in the basic land type, not the card name) would be added to the list of basic land types. Aside from what I quoted to him from that article, I have no idea where to find any official information that gives the guidelines for what would cause WotC to update the CR and I figured if anyone knew the answer, it would be someone on here.

There may be a bit of a language barrier, or it may just be that I've assumed they would update the CR and so read that into the article.
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
WotC updates the Comp Rules EVERY SET, that said if they printed Cave as listed in that article they would need to make the example update I listed to 212.6g. (and thats why I listed Deeper Cavern. A land type appearing on a basic land does not make that land type basic.)
WotC updates the Comp Rules EVERY SET, that said if they printed Cave as listed in that article they would need to make the example update I listed to 212.6g. (and thats why I listed Deeper Cavern. A land type appearing on a basic land does not make that land type basic.)

OK, I'll point him here and see if that's sufficient to convince him.

Thanks.
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
Hi. I'm the guy who needs conviction.
I think that our question was answered by Deeper Cavern, but for a mental exercise I would be willing to try it yet on City of Glass.
Avatar wouldn't become basic land type in first place because it isn't land type but tribal type. But lets say its typeline would look like:

Basic Land - Plains Island Swamp Mountain Forest Locus

Locus wouldn't become basic land type, am I right?
The game rules could support such a type line without making Locus into a basic land type.
Hi. I'm the guy who needs conviction.
I think that our question was answered by Deeper Cavern, but for a mental exercise I would be willing to try it yet on City of Glass.
Avatar wouldn't become basic land type in first place because it isn't land type but tribal type. But lets say its typeline would look like:

Basic Land - Plains Island Swamp Mountain Forest Locus

Locus wouldn't become basic land type, am I right?

Correct, The Basic Land types are defined by 212.6g, not by what subtypes may or may not appear on actual basic land. It doesn't really make a difference but I wanted to note that Avatar is a Creature type (Tribal shares subtypes with Creature and they are collectively known as Creature Types).

That all said I wouldn't expect them to ever actually print a Basic Land card that had a subtype that wasn't a basic land type.
That all said I wouldn't expect them to ever actually print a Basic Land card that had a subtype that wasn't a basic land type.

This is the sticking point. We have all agreed that game rules as they currently stand wouldn't make Cave, as printed in the article, a basic land type. What we can't get across to Qamar is that if WotC printed Cave (the card), they would only do so if they also added Cave (the land type) to the basic land types. His feeling on it is that the reason they say in the article that Cave wasn't printed is because the fact that Cave isn't currently a basic land type made the card essentially unprintable.

I'm out of ways to get the point across that if they wanted to print Cave, they'd add it to the basic land types.
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
Thanks.
I have another question. IMO more interesting.

Kettle
Basic Land - Cave
Cave is basic land type.
All Caves have ": Add to your pool."

Does card like this could work? Does static ability is able to promote land type to basic land type? Would it up tribal by 1? Would while in pley prevent opponent from wining by Coalition Victory if he wouldn't control any Cave?
This is the sticking point. We have all agreed that game rules as they currently stand wouldn't make Cave, as printed in the article, a basic land type. What we can't get across to Qamar is that if WotC printed Cave (the card), they would only do so if they also added Cave (the land type) to the basic land types. His feeling on it is that the reason they say in the article that Cave wasn't printed is because the fact that Cave isn't currently a basic land type made the card essentially unprintable.

I'm out of ways to get the point across that if they wanted to print Cave, they'd add it to the basic land types.

It mean that you totaly didnt get my point.
That's not possible. The list of basic land types is "hardcoded" within the CompRules. It can't be changed from within the game. This is true for all subtypes, but for basic land types especially, because of the rule 212.6g that was already quoted.
Thanks.
I have another question. IMO more interesting.

Kettle
Basic Land - Cave
Cave is basic land type.
All Caves have ": Add to your pool."

Does card like this could work? Does static ability is able to promote land type to basic land type? Would it up tribal by 1? Would while in pley prevent opponent from wining by Coalition Victory if he wouldn't control any Cave?

While the rules text would probably look more like [While Kettle is in play, Cave is a basic land type that grants ": Add to your pool."], yes the card would work, it would up Domain (I assume you ment Domain not Tribal) by 1, it would prevent the opponent from winning with Coalition Victory (unless they had a cave) and it would let you chose 'Cave' for anything asking you to chose a basic land type.

That's not possible. The list of basic land types is "hardcoded" within the CompRules. It can't be changed from within the game. This is true for all subtypes, but for basic land types especially, because of the rule 212.6g that was already quoted.

When the rules and a card don't agree the card wins, If a card says "Add X to list Y." then for the durration of that ability anything that looks at list Y sees X as part of it...

The rules hard-code that attacking causes creatures to tap, but Vigilance changes that (even before it was keyworded). The Comp Rules are the starting point, cards can and DO change them.
Of course Domain. It's late here.
Thx a lot.
If a card says "Add X to list Y." then for the durration of that ability anything that looks at list Y sees X as part of it...

The problem with this is that the ability that makes Cave a basic land type only functions when the Cave is in play. When it's not in play, it has an illegal subtype in the type line.

In other words, no, this card doesn't work.
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
The problem with this is that the ability that makes Cave a basic land type only functions when the Cave is in play. When it's not in play, it has an illegal subtype in the type line.

In other words, no, this card doesn't work.

Why illegal?
Why illegal?

You can not make a card that has the subtype "Cave" in its type line if "Cave" is not a defined subtype. You'd either need a rule that declares Cave to be a basic land type or an effect that does so and that works in all zones. The only effects that work in all zones are characteristic-defining abilities. An ability that changes the rules of the game can not be a CDA. Therefore, the only way to make a card that has "Cave" in its type line is to add "Cave" to the rules.
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
You can not make a card that has the subtype "Cave" in its type line if "Cave" is not a defined subtype. You'd either need a rule that declares Cave to be a basic land type or an effect that does so and that works in all zones. The only effects that work in all zones are characteristic-defining abilities. An ability that changes the rules of the game can not be a CDA. Therefore, the only way to make a card that has "Cave" in its type line is to add "Cave" to the rules.

Yes I understan this. If Kettle would be printed folowing rule off cours would need to be updated:
[indent]Land Type
Land subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: “Land — Locus, Land — Urza’s Mine,” etc. Land subtypes are also called land types. Note that “basic,” “legendary,” and “nonbasic” aren’t land types. See rule 212.6, “Lands.” See also Basic Land Type.
The list of land types, updated through the ExpansionX set, is as follows:
Desert, Forest, Island, Lair, Locus, Mine, Mountain, Plains, Power-Plant, Swamp, Tower, Urza’s, Cave[/indent]
The problem is that, even if the reclassifying subtypes with in-game effects worked, basic land types have rules baggage. Rule 212.6g not only defines basic land types, it also specifies that they have an associated colored-mana-producing activated ability, and which color is associated with each basic land type.
That first post wasn't the original question really, but it's partially covered now.

Qamar, by page 5 of the original thread, it was already known that no rule in the CR makes "Deeper Cavern" illegal. You told me yourself.

The question was if WoTC would print a land with the typeline Basic Land - Foobar (new type,) without adding Foobar to the list of basic land types in 212.6g (and a ssociated mana ability.) If it would make sense to print it, assuming Design had some modicum of reason to push it. If it would be coherent with the intent of 212.6g.

I also have a smaller question: Does not being listed in 212.6g make any other land type a nonbasic land type? In other words, if a land type is not a basic land type, isn't it a nonbasic one?

EDIT: Last question changed to a more direct one.
There's no such thing as a "nonbasic land type". There are just "land types" and the subset of those, "basic land types".

Something like Locus or Lair could be a "land type other than a basic land type" if you really needed a label.
As a final note:
Unrelenting Rats
Basic Creature - Rats
~'s power and toughness are equal to the number of rats in play.
*/*

Is Basic, but it isn't a basic land and you can only run 4 of them in a deck (the exemption is ONLY for basic lands). However if you somehow made it a land while it was in play then it would be a basic land and you couldn't destroy it with something that said to destroy target non-basic land.

One could argue that any card with the Basic supertype is exempt from the DCI Floor rules, and there would be no need to list a special rule for Relentless Rats in the CR. This would still require a modification of the rules, but the premise is that BASIC is what grants the card exemption.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
One could argue that any card with the Basic supertype is exempt from the DCI Floor rules, and there would be no need to list a special rule for Relentless Rats in the CR. This would still require a modification of the rules, but the premise is that BASIC is what grants the card exemption.

One could argue that, but it's all just hypothetical unless WotC actually prints such a card.
One could argue that, but it's all just hypothetical unless WotC actually prints such a card.

Presumably, it will work in the rules, if it were done:

[INDENT]
We talked about putting "Basic Creature - Rat" on Relentless Rats, but decided it would be too confusing, too dumb, and perhaps even "too awesome."

[/INDENT]

There had been some discussion, and it didn't seem to get killed for rules reasons, since there is nothing in the rules for Basic that says ONLY lands can get the treatment of the supertype, and in fact, the opposite is said:

[INDENT]
CR 212.1d
An object’s supertype is independent of its card type and subtype. Changing an object’s card type or subtype won’t change its supertype. Changing an object’s supertype won’t change its card type or subtype. When an object gains or loses a supertype, it retains any other supertypes it had.

[/INDENT]

The glossary definition for "Basic" DOES indicate association with Lands, but this is due to the absence of any other type printed with the Basic supertype:

[INDENT]
Basic
Basic is a supertype. Any land with the supertype basic is a basic land. Any land without that supertype is a nonbasic land. See rule 205.4, “Supertypes.”

[/INDENT]

[INDENT]
CR 205.4b
Any land with the supertype “basic” is a basic land. Any land that doesn’t have this supertype is a nonbasic land.

[/INDENT]

Unlike the rest of the subrules for CR 205.4, this is the only instance of "any land", as the others say "any permanent." Since one may presumably place these supertypes on NON permanents, such as a Snow Instant (mana or damage produced from such a card is snow mana, or snow-based damage, etc. and treated accordingly and all cards printed that care about snow), there is nothing in this that unambiguously implies the supertype Basic 1) needs to be associated with a Land, 2) needs to be associated with a subtype.

Note also effects like Allied Strategies look for what's in the subtype, after the em-dash, not for the supertype, and therefore only associate the suptype because it ONCE appeared on a supertyped land. This being why you can use Savannah and Temple Garden, but also Forest and Plains, for domain effects, despite the first two not being basic lands.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
That first post wasn't the original question really, but it's partially covered now.

Qamar, by page 5 of the original thread, it was already known that no rule in the CR makes "Deeper Cavern" illegal. You told me yourself.

Yes. I thing thet we'd agree about it. Quitequieter also I thing was accepting fact that such land could be printed. But even on page 8 I was still reading post like such:
It's also possible he's not aware that WotC would never intentionally cause the sort of nightmare to the rules that would ensue if they printed a basic land that had a subtype that wasn't Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain or Forest and didn't add that new subtype to the list of basic lands.

From the picture I can see that the card have subtype. Nothing in the picture says that it is basic land type.

Yes there is. The type Basic Land says that. The same as if they created a card with Creature - Grendl (so far, no creature with that type has ever been printed), Grendl would automatically become a creature type as soon as it was officially added to the set. If they print a land that has the supertype of Basic Land and add the subtype of Cave (or Hollows, or Sandbar, or Meteor), that subtype automatically becomes a basic land type and would be added to the CR as such.

If the only subtype on a card with the Basic supertype and the Land subtype is Hollows, then Hollows is a basic land type. The CR gets emmended to include it in the listing for basic land types, mana it would produce would be produced from a basic land and count towards Imperiosaur, it could be fetched with Rampant Growth, it would pump Matca Rioters or deal extra damage for Tribal Flames, and it allows the subtype Hollows to appear on nonbasics and still count for basic land type matters effects, simply by being on a Basic Land ONCE (since the CR must include it).

So my argumentation was focused on convincing people that there is nothing in the rules which would preventing printing such land. I have no luxury of discusing matters like "would R&D be willing to print such card or not".

The question was if WoTC would print a land with the typeline Basic Land - Foobar (new type,) without adding Foobar to the list of basic land types in 212.6g (and a ssociated mana ability.) If it would make sense to print it, assuming Design had some modicum of reason to push it. If it would be coherent with the intent of 212.6g.

If it would be realy the question we was disputing I doubt such letters like CR would ever appear in the argumentation and it would be no point posting question in this forum as it isn't rules question.

As a side note I want to say that it is very comfortable to be a person who answering questions in Rules Q&A forum. You giving an answer and everyane seems to expect such answer from the begining. Othervise you can say exactly these same things and you are treated like a crazy. You can post multiple pages of arguments traying to find as simple or as sophisticated arguments as you can in hope that someone would work, you can adduce Comp Rules and universal logic and at the end you could as well speak Chinese.
Now I feel like Valeron Outlander's flavor text refering to me.
The problem is that, even if the reclassifying subtypes with in-game effects worked, basic land types have rules baggage. Rule 212.6g not only defines basic land types, it also specifies that they have an associated colored-mana-producing activated ability, and which color is associated with each basic land type.

Yes but they are rules baggages associated with every basic land type separatelly. Not a rule baggage associated with term "basic land type".
Oh god Qamar, don't bring the other discussion here! I'll answer those quotes there. Besides, you posted them there too ¬_¬
Yes but they are rules baggages associated with every basic land type separatelly. Not a rule baggage associated with term "basic land type".

See, that's part of the problem! The thing is that even if it that happens to be the case, they would never ever make use of that technicallity anyway, because it goes against the intent of the rule!

Yes I know this isn't a CR question per se, but it's still related to the rules.
Oh god Qamar, don't bring the other discussion here!

For the record. It's no me who bring other discusssion here. Right, not in form of quotes but relation. Also me was dissapointed that orginal discussion was moved to thread which was created to let us find answers for our rules related questions. I'd post these quotes to stop confabulations about outside discussion.

See, that's part of the problem! The thing is that even if it that happens to be the case, they would never ever make use of that technicallity anyway, because it goes against the intent of the rule!

For the rules thread it is relevent that, if some ability would turn some land type into basic land type, that type wouldn't get, because of that, some intrinsic mana ability, but it would not create situation which doesn't work under the rules. It could be against tradytion but not against rules. Now note that Melriken's wording create virtual basic land type with its intrinsic mana ability, so it isn't even case here.
In principle, Wizards could print Cave in the next set.

Without a rules change to specify that the Cave in "Basic Land - Cave" is (basic) land type, it's not clear whether it would be or not - it's not clear what the status of a random word printed on the type line would be - I expect that most players would play it as though it were whatever the context suggested it to be (in this case a land type, probably basic).

However, if Cave were printed (without silver borders) then it would come with a CR revision specifying that it was the sixth basic land type - and would probably mean committing to having Caves in all future large and core sets...
M:tG Rules Advisor
Without a rules change to specify that the Cave in "Basic Land - Cave" is (basic) land type, it's not clear whether it would be or not - it's not clear what the status of a random word printed on the type line would be

Without rules changed it would be clear that it isn't basic land type.
Without rules changed it would be clear that it isn't basic land type.

Let's clean something up:

Were

[indent]Cave
Basic Land - Cave
(: Add to your mana pool.)[/indent]

ever printed, it will coincide with a CR update that confirms it. It's not to say the Rules need to say it exists to exist (that's what Oracle does), but it exists, it's a basic land, and I find it highly unlikely -- nigh impossible -- to print a card with a subtype for a basic land that the rules did not allow. If the card were created, the card's intent is clear (it's a basic land, it's type is therefore a basic land type).

Imagine they did this:

[indent]Field
Basic Land - Plains
(: Add to your mana pool.)[/indent]

The rules that could cover this already exist.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
Kind of nitpick:
it's a basic land, it's type is therefore a basic land type

That's an inmediate conclusion using the english language, but not necessarily in rules terms. However, since the expectation for that to be true is so high, I believe not doing that violates the current intent of the rule that defines what a basic land type is (212.6g)... the whole point of this to me.
Let's clean something up:

Were

[indent]Cave
Basic Land - Cave
(: Add to your mana pool.)[/indent]

ever printed, it will coincide with a CR update that confirms it. It's not to say the Rules need to say it exists to exist (that's what Oracle does), but it exists, it's a basic land, and I find it highly unlikely -- nigh impossible -- to print a card with a subtype for a basic land that the rules did not allow. If the card were created, the card's intent is clear (it's a basic land, it's type is therefore a basic land type).

Lets separate facts from your believes. Fact is that nothing prevents basic land with subtype other then basic land type from being printed. Rest are your believes with some misconceptions.

And make it clear. Since they would never add new basic land type to the game (othervise they would do it this time when they wanted that hard to include Barry's Land in the set), if they ever would print new basic land with new subtype this subtype will not be basic land type.

Kind of nitpick:
That's an inmediate conclusion using the english language, but not necessarily in rules terms. However, since the expectation for that to be true is so high, I believe not doing that violates the current intent of the rule that defines what a basic land type is (212.6g)... the whole point of this to me.

Please, stop speaking what intent of the rules are. If duals, shok lands and some other wouldn't exist people would swearing that intend of the rules are that basic land types would be put only on basic lands. And if someone would notice that nothing in the rules prevents puting them on other lands, "logical" conclusion would arise that if R&D would ever see reason to print nonbasic land with basic land type and realise that they can do it, they would quicly change the rules in a way which prevent it in order to prevent them from doing it and save intent of the rule.
And make it clear. Since they would never add new basic land type to the game (othervise they would do it this time when they wanted that hard to include Barry's Land in the set), if they ever would print new basic land with new subtype this subtype will not be basic land type.

Do you have a rule to back this up?
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
Do you have a rule to back this up?

Since that statement has nothing to do with the rules, but with the content of hypothetical future sets, what would he need one for? This is sort of like asking for a Comprehensive Rules citation to confirm that Fusion Elemental exists.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Since that statement has nothing to do with the rules, but with the content of hypothetical future sets, what would he need one for? This is sort of like asking for a Comprehensive Rules citation to confirm that Fusion Elemental exists.

The statement presumes that Magic cannot add a new basic land type even on a new basic land:

if they ever would print new basic land with new subtype this subtype will not be basic land type.

I'm trying to figure out this statement, as it seems illogical. If a new basic land is printed, it will (seemingly logically) have a new basic land type attached to it, as a new subtype on a new basic land would be a basic land type by definition. My question was to attempt to unravel the illogic I percieved.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
It's not a question of the game rules. As far as those are considered, they could print a Basic Land - Cave and make Cave a basic land type, and they could print a Basic Land - Cave and make Cave just an ordinary land type. The rules would work either way.

As far as design rules, there's no precedent for creating a new basic land type, and there's also no precedent for printing a basic land that doesn't have a basic land type. They could do either of them, however, if they felt it was justified.
I'm trying to figure out this statement, as it seems illogical. If a new basic land is printed, it will (seemingly logically) have a new basic land type attached to it, as a new subtype on a new basic land would be a basic land type by definition.

No, actually, it wouldn't. The basic land types are defined by the rules, not by the fact that they appear on basic lands:
212.6g The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words "basic land type," it's referring to one of these subtypes.

The statement presumes that Magic cannot add a new basic land type even on a new basic land:

He's not saying they can't for some rules reason. In fact, he quite explicitly pointed out that this is not his view. He is saying they won't, because if they were going to do so, they would have done it in Conflux. They tried, and ran into problems that appear to be insurmountable.

If you have not read MaRo's most recent article - and it sounds like you haven't - do so. It's essential to understanding this discussion.

In addition, this:
a new subtype on a new basic land would be a basic land type by definition

is false, or at least, not an obvious truth. At this point, you are the one who needs rules backup. No other supertype works like this, and there is no reason to assume Basic is an exception without something from WotC explicitly saying it is.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
No, actually, it wouldn't. The basic land types are defined by the rules, not by the fact that they appear on basic lands:

You think they need to alter the CR, THEN get to print a new land card? This seems to be what Qamar is arguing, too. if so, as I've argued previously, they could NOT print a Planeswalker without printing the rules for PWs BEFORE the cards are made. If the rules must allow the card to exist before the card can exist (a progression of creation), then PWs (and Progenitus) would not have been printable at the time they WERE printable. Yet they are. The rules do NOT limit the creation of new subtypes, or R&D would never have tried to create "Barry's Land" in the first place.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
Sign In to post comments