This would be the next Mind's Desire, Dragonstorm, or whatever the hip "I win right now" card is, and at only 5 mana to boot. Between Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle, Taiga, Stomping Ground, and as many mountains as you need to complete the quota, they fact that they come in tapped is of no consequence, and the deck doesn't even have to be primarily green. Manamorphose can fix the colors if need be.

Oh yeah, it ought to say "basic" oughtn't it.

Actually - this will still work with the broken valakut; you still need that out first (and you did before I made this basic only) Still, it's a two card combo of eeeevil.

Technically, no you didn't; Genesis Wave or Scapeshift are perfectly happy to dump several Valakut and several Mountains onto the field at the same time and let the Valakuts see the Mountains.

Really? That seems contrary to pretty much every other "lots of stuff happens at once"

That's the way all the "lots of stuff ETBs at once" cards work. If you get 4 Glimmerpost, you gain 4+4+4+4 life, not 1+2+3+4. If you cast Ghostway with a bunch of Allies out, they all get the maximum bonus when they come back. If you sac a Protean Hulk to get 4 Soul Warden and 4 1/1s, you gain 4*8 life. And if you Scapeshift into 2 Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and 5 Mountains, you deal 10 lots of the 3 damage for the win.

Unless you held back a Mountain instead of sacrificing everything, that Scapeshift will deal 0 damage. Valakut triggers need a total of 6 mountains.

­Demonfire would like to have a word with you.
In one of my older sets, I used to have a card that did the same thing, except I costed it at . When we began to playtest it, the deck became the dominant archetype, and we had to increase it's cost by . 26 basic lands is a lot of lands to have in play... This card becomes a two-card kill combo with, like, 500 existing Magic cards.

So how many lands SHOULD you get for ? Because I think it's a lot.

Given Explosive Vegetation, no more than 3. Could be 4 or 5 if you're giving it to everyone, a la New Frontiers or Collective Voyage.

­Primeval Titan seems to infer that you can get at least a 6/6 Trampler and two land of your choice for 6. Man, I hate that dude.

But, I could see 4 land. Maybe even untapped. Much more than that, though, and the game kind of breaks down. This is one of those Common v. Rare games. I'm pretty sure that if they printed a rare at it would be the strongest it could be without going over.

I do get the problem, though. It's a "If you already have 5 lands in play, what good are all these extra lands going to do you?" conundrum, which sounds good until you find cards that are that mana hungry and put them in your deck. Suddenly, your opponent is Inspector Gadget to your Incredible Hulk. You aren't even in the same cartoon anymore.

But, man, do I hate that Primeval Titan. Just... just look at that thing. I have yet to play a game of Commander where my opponent played that thing, I didn't have an immediate answer for it, but I came back to win the game. Nutso.

Howsabout taking them all into hand? That way you at least need a third card to do the "huge bomb" combo (and a three card huge bomb seems fine) and you still get the mana stripping stuff?

Ha! That's at least a little bit more on target. I'm quite sure Alex will say something about Seek the Horizon, and I'd whine about rarity, but that at least takes a bit more work to break. Granted, you could probably do something with all those cards in your graveyard and/or Seismic Assault is going to love this, but a card like that might prove to be 'not broken'. If I was going to put it in a real Magic set? I'd assume they wouldn't allow more than 7 lands tops.

7 would be pretty mad. People liked the old Scouting Trek + Clear the Land combo, and that got 5 onto the field at the cost of 2 cards.

But yeah, if you're willing to put them into hand rather than straight onto the battlefield, that could let the numbers go higher than the 3 I mentioned before. 5 land into hand for 5 mana is an intriguing card but not obviously broken. (In fact, you could say Endless Horizons is white's take on "as many into hand as you like" for 4 mana.)

(@jmgariepy: Primeval Titan is utterly ludicrous. I think it's managed to be the most ludicrous of an already stupidly overpowered cycle. It and its friends need to die and disappear into a big hole.)

(@alex: It's so sad that Wizards is encouraging this behavior in Mythic Rare. It's like their telling us which decks we should enjoy playing. I'm all for them making their jobs easier by printing a subset of cards 'better' than other cards, but their tipping the scales much too far. I remember the first time I saw Grave Titan in a spoiler... The turn you play it you gain 10 power and toughness worth of creatures for 6cc. I just assumed someone had screwed up.)

Which is more evidence for my "This card costs 5? You SURE you want to waste that on some land? Because next turn the opponent is going to CRUSH you."

The obvious choices seem to be:

• Keep it at common, and let it get a "sane" number of lands (possibly, 2 to play and 2 to hand, or something?)
• Make it rare or mythic, and let it get any number, even if it has to cost slightly more. It'll still be a two-card kill combo with Steppe Lynx or Fireball, but maybe that can be balanced.
• Some compromise at uncommon or rare where it gets a large but finite number (5? 10?) which sounds impressive but isn't necessarily a win.

The trouble with costing weird things is that they look like they should be fairly costed for the usual situation, but that in order to print them, they have to be fairly printed for the most broken situation. So the idea of "like a more expensive kodama's reach at common" and "like an infinite kodama's reach" are both cool, but I'm not sure the same card can necessarily do both.

Hmm, I don't think Vitenka necessarily intended for this to be common. It's just the card creation form defaults that way. Vitenka's set is one of the chief motivating factors for me to add the "unspecified" rarity.

Yeah, sorry, this is my "Dump out a card, see what happens" set. The rarity of a card has no impact on its mechanic; so I don't usually worry about it.

But yeah - the basic problem remains. This would usually be "Hey, get a lot more lands, strip my deck! Useful, has to be a bit expensive, clearly isn't any use at all if it costs too much though" But then, well, wizards have printed some insane stuff themselves; and you have to cost it to stop people going "Hah! this plus another card you've never heard of! I Win!"

Which is a real shame. And probably the only non-profit-related reason I've heard for type-2.

You don't have to do that. 2-card combos exist; occasionally even in standard. The recent example which irritates me is Geist of Saint Traft plus Angelic Destiny, though I suppose 10 flying untargetable damage per turn starting on turn 4 isn't technically "I win right now". But just a couple of years ago there was Devoted Druid + Quillspike, which is a combo of 2 card from the same block for an infinitely large creature.

So while combos or synergy with other cards is definitely something to keep in mind, you really don't have to let it put you off making a card if the combo piece is obscure, old, or just broken on its own. (There are lots of instant-win combos with Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, but they're almost all Emrakul's fault, not the other card's.)

It's strange. Way back when, I had designed a custom set which utelized untapping as a mechanic. I knew the potential for abuse was high, so I worked really hard to make sure there were not degenerate combos. When Wizards tackled the same subject, they saw the elephant in the corner and decided to march him out for everyone to see, feed him a few peanuts and make him the star of the show.

Which is an incredibly awkward double standard. Had I done that, people probably would have looked at my set and declared it broken. That's mostly because I don't have a full team of playtesters to prove otherwise. In the same sense, "get all your land now" can't really be tested for fairness because there isn't 50 dedicated people running it through the grinder.

But I'm pretty sure that most of the arguing that we've been spinning around hasn't been "Is this card fair?", but more "How many cards that we like does this card invalidate?" It's hard to get a positive reaction from a card that says "Hey, you know the way you've been playing Magic? Doesn't matter. From now on, throw away all your old cards, and play this one instead." Sure, it happens all the time, but it's going to come with it's share of sour grapes.

So, semantical arguments aside about power level, if Wizards announced that they were going to print this card in Magic 2013, I wouldn't like it. I'd be upset, actually... in the same way that printing non-basic lands that tap for colored mana would upset me. Because I would find plenty of use for a card that fetched 5 lands, but wouldn't want that card to automatically be better than Perilous Forays, for example, which, by the way, is a spectacular card in the right deck.

But if the intent was something along the line of "I just want this card to exist so I can put it in my Commander deck that doesn't really take advantage of the card, but sure doesn't mind all the land coming out of the deck," then go for it. I think the card is fun, too, and it would be a blast to play and swing around in a casual deck. I suppose that's the reason that silver borders exist...