CardName: Cave
Cost:
Type: Basic Land - Cave
Pow/Tgh:
Rules Text: {T}: Add {1} to your mana pool.
'Cave' counts as a basic land type (while Cave is in play).
Flavour Text:
Set/Rarity: Gentlemen Magicians Common
Cave
C
Basic Land – Cave
: Add to your mana pool. 'Cave' counts as a basic land type (while Cave is in play).
cf. "Barry's Land". Idea is that you can search for it, and it ups domain count if it's in play, but it's not required for coalition victory if it's not in play. But rules are not that clean (and not appropriate for this set).
What now occurs to me is it's will destroy your opponent if they have coalition victory but you have cave, and I can't decide if that's good or bad...
The template of this card is a little off. The type line "Basic Land - Cave" should be changed to "Land - Cave", since Cave isn't a Basic Land at all times. (The alternative would be the messier line of text "'Cave' is not a basic land when it is not on the battlefield").
Personally, I think a sixth basic land creates enough of a headache without having it operate differently in different zones. Trying to make some people happy by having it be a new basic land only when playing against an opponent who has it ain't worth the hassle of explanation. This isn't real Magic, and even if it was, the number of cards that this would truly mess up is minimal, and none in your block if you design correctly. Better to be controversial, excite some people and annoy others than to be confusing.
: Add 
to your mana pool.
cf. "Barry's Land". Idea is that you can search for it, and it ups domain count if it's in play, but it's not required for coalition victory if it's not in play. But rules are not that clean (and not appropriate for this set).
What now occurs to me is it's will destroy your opponent if they have coalition victory but you have cave, and I can't decide if that's good or bad...
The template of this card is a little off. The type line "Basic Land - Cave" should be changed to "Land - Cave", since Cave isn't a Basic Land at all times. (The alternative would be the messier line of text "'Cave' is not a basic land when it is not on the battlefield").
Personally, I think a sixth basic land creates enough of a headache without having it operate differently in different zones. Trying to make some people happy by having it be a new basic land only when playing against an opponent who has it ain't worth the hassle of explanation. This isn't real Magic, and even if it was, the number of cards that this would truly mess up is minimal, and none in your block if you design correctly. Better to be controversial, excite some people and annoy others than to be confusing.