What do you all think about this being an example of a new cycle of land?

I think that lands that produce more than one mana are dangerous, and that this isn't enough of a drawback for one. If you play three of these in a row, you had six mana turn three with essentially no drawback after your first turn.

If these added " or " rather than "" you could compare them with taplands/guildgates: Worse as the first land drop, better as third plus. Overall outside of an aggressive strategy that really cares about hitting their first and second turn drops such a hypothetical card is usually better than Gates since you can play around that minor drawbacks simply by having one or two basic lands in your starting hand...

That should help us understand the drawback as "less severe than straight ETBT" since decks that want to be aggressive straight won't play this and slower decks can easily support some of those with less inconvenience than lands that straight ETBT.

Now this doesn't just fix mana, but outright ramps you. I don't think a version of this that adds would be balanced sufficiently by that little a drawback, which in turn means a cycle of these would be played even in off-color decks.

Since dropping this turn 1 or 2 is only ever a consideration if you don't have common gainlands or basic lands or have multiple of these, the curve will probably just skip some mana costs. You will probably plan for hitting at least one of these by turn three.

To putthings in perspective: If you removed the whole benefit of not playing this turn 1:

> ~ enters the battlefield tapped and exerted.
: Add .

... if you did that... then I would wonder whether this is about balanced.

Well, the previous downside for a dual-dual land cycle was "Enter tapped and return a land to your hand". So... I guess not untapping 2-mana next turn is roughly the same as losing a land tempo? Especially since you were able to find ways to make that bounce into a benefit.

So yes, I think we'd be more likely to see the simpler version before we see a pushed "Maybe it's safe if you can have the full bump on turn 3" version?

Mind you - if you WANT a format where turns 1 and 2 are pure ramp, and turn 3 has 6 mana available to it (and splashing extra colours is basically free)? This current implementation does the job. ... which yes; green certainly can already choose to do. But making that available to all colours for a custom set? A bold move. Making that available in standard for all colours for the rest of time? Almost certainly not something that would be printed.

See also Temple of the False God. The Temple, by the way, is a very, very good card in the right deck. Back when busted affinity decks flourished, Temple convinced a number of Mono-White Control players that they could win enough match ups by jumping from round 4 to round 6 with Akroma's Vengeance. If it wasn't for Temple, I don't think the MWC players would have ever bothered to make that error. (I found this out the hard way playing tournaments at the time: you can destroy every permanent affinity controls, and they can still deal 10 damage to you over the following two turns.)

Shoreline Peak is better than Temple in so many ways, it borders on the absurd. There have been few lands that add more than one mana that didn't look terrible on paper, or weren't out the gate busted. It's admittedly tough to get that magic spot that both looks good and isn't broken.

Should I also mention Teferi's Isle? I have that card in one of my commander decks, and it's pretty good. It's also tapped and exhausted before I get to play it, no matter what round it enters the battlefield. And I don't even get to use it half the time. But I don't need all my mana every turn.

Admittedly, I started running it because it's in my Obliterate deck. The phasing is intended to sneak past global land destruction effects. But to be honest, it's far more common for me to use the Teferi's Isle to put enough mana in my pool to cast Obliterate. I found the deck likes using it for ramp, more than for tricks.