Add "land" type to the front side of flip lands.

Kinesia

Since you are now making "land matters" cards it's _really_ bad that some of the best lands can not ever be fetched by land fetch cards and don't trigger many of the effects. (They seem to when flipped, but that's too late.)

There aren't enough lands to begin with which hurts your land matters cards. It should be very easy to add "Land" to the other side too, and yes it's weird that Dowsing Dagger becomes a "Land Artifact" but it doesn't hurt anything and adds a LOT of functionality from one simple database update.

Similar to werewolves being "Human Werewolf" and flipping to just be "Werewolf".

DBJones

I agree about the counting lands effects (all of them should count reinforcements at the very least, and also increasing whatever bonus they give might actually make them playable). For fetching though, some of the flip lands are really strong and being able to fetch them for cheap might be a bit much. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just saying they should really playtest it first.

hawkyh1

on a similar idea, why is nissa's pilgrimage not tagged as
land?

HH

wereotter

Except the flip cards never were lands on their front face. If you look at their paper counterparts they're either stand-along enchantments, or they're aura enchantments. (Also a few are creatures or artifacts the turn into lands on their back side)

None of them are lands on their front face.

hawkyh1 said:

on a similar idea, why is nissa's pilgrimage not tagged as
land?

HH

Nissa's Pilgrimage was a sorcery.

It seems all the cards marked as "land" are cards that actually were lands in the paper game. Gem conversion spells and supports in this game aren't all based off land cards.

Kinesia

I understand wereotter, I wouldn't mind except they are pushing "Land matters" and since we don't have basic lands there just aren't enough....

wereotter

Kinesia said:

I understand wereotter, I wouldn't mind except they are pushing "Land matters" and since we don't have basic lands there just aren't enough....

That's true, though now a lot of support removal is specifically non-land supports. I'm not sure I want them giving more supports the land subtype while support removal can't hit it.

Kinesia

I've rarely regretted the times I've included a "destroy nonland support" and "destroy support" in the same deck...

Kinesia

As an addendum to this... You are also restricting things further with some cards and requirements specifying "Land support" instead of just "Land".

Is this really really necessary?