I think this could be fairly costed at or , since you need a target to cast it. Then again, this is an artifact set. Opinions?

I think could work, since it's conditional. It shouldn't go lower, because of the card advantage it creates.

I'd advise against adding this to any set. If it cost too much, people won't like it. If you cost it aggressively, people will throw it in their decks, excitedly, then realize that it won't go off unless there's an artifact in play. The net result?: A lot of frowning players.

Edit: Was that rude? I can't tell if that was rude. Sometimes I accidently put on my game reviewer hat, instead of my helpful designer hat. As a game reviewer, I'd drag you on the carpet for that decision. As a fellow fake Magic card designer, I'd call that fine, and possibly an intriguing choice. Weird, huh? Take what I say with a grain of salt... tomorrow, I'll be disagreeing with myself.

Artifact sets need artifact destruction - this gives you a land too? Sign me up.

I fear you're right, that too few people will see it that way, though.

Actually, it does. You must choose targets when you cast the spell, so you must target an artifact to cast this. Only the destruction is optional. Try "When you cast ~, you may destroy target artifact." Then it has a triggered ability whose resolution is independent of the spell's.

On second thought, making the spell require there to be artifact is the easiest way. My suggestion enters the realm of "because I can" card design. Market it this way: "artifact removal that also gets you a land", not "land searching that requires there to be an artifact to cast it."

I think this is fine as it is. If you wanted to make the artifact destruction optional, the way to phrase it would be "Destroy up to one target artifact. You may search [etc]." But then that'd be strictly better than Rampant Growth, and so would have to cost . So like I say, I think this is fine as it is. It's a bit like my Repurpose: an artifact-destruction spell with a nice upside when you get to cast it.