The First Version was:
Shalahd, Tel-Jilad Warrior gets +1/+1 for each differently named land you control.
Tap three untapped differently named lands you control: Regenerate Shalahd.
If you control seven differently named lands, Shalahd gains landwalk.
Rare. 0/0

I figured calling out "Lands you control are Legendary" allowed me to make this guy Mythic... he is a story character after all. Also, I really didn't enjoy constantly reading "for each differently named land..."

Also, orginally had a differently-named-landfall trigger for +1/+1 counters instead. New Mirrodin has Ion counters, though, so that's a no go.

I don't know, though. I think "Lands you control are Legendary" is fine on a Mythic, but I wonder if I need to make this card splashier for it to work? Maybe remove the Regeneration? Maybe add value? ­

Landwalk? So it's unblockable if your opponent controls any... lands?

That ability might as well read, "~ is unblockable as long as you control seven or more lands"

Personally, I like that it says "landwalk."

In Limited, it probably says "When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice all lands you control." I don't think a mostly downside ability should be mythic. What if it said "Nonbasic lands are legendary"?

I feel he might as well say "each differently named land". That obviously rewards a diverse land base. Does he really gain anything by being unplayable in any non-dedicated deck?

I think giving him landwalk is very funny (and green), but I'm not sure if he'd be printed like that. I guess maybe.

Especially at mythic, I feel the regen and evasion abilities could do with being a bit less wordy, perhaps making regeneration on all the time, or going back to giving them both a cost in tapping lands. (If you stick with "legendary", just giving them a colourless mana cost would work.)

BTW, what even happens if a Legendary and another card with the same types and subtypes exist on the battlefield at the same time? Like, what happens if I control a Legendary Basic Land - Island, and my opponent controls a Basic Land - Island? Nothing?

Oh, ok, I found the answer to my own question:

> 704.5k If two or more legendary permanents with the same name are on the battlefield, all are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.” If only one of those permanents is legendary, this rule doesn’t apply.

Anyway, this card feels a little bit "mechanicy" instead of being top-down. For example, what about this guy makes it so that your lands become legends? How does he exactly make it so that your Basic Island becomes the uniquest Basic Island in the world such that it is spoke of in minstrel tales? It feels like the whole Legendary business is put in there to achieve a game state effect rather than fitting the card, and I try to avoid things like that when I can.

Woah. Lot's of opinions. I don't know if the card is doing something right or not, but it certainly hit a nerve.

@Chris: I figure 'landwalk' is a bit like 'Protection from Everything'. It sounds ridiculous when it doesn't exist, but, once it does exist, it becomes a part of the game, and people don't question it anymore. I figure that Wizards is just looking for the right creature to put that on. It obviously would only get once per decade or so...

@Dude: Well, the fact that this is Mythic kind of excludes it from limited... that would be the point of making it mythic or rare. But I get what you're saying about "Lands you control are Legendary" being on a Mythic Rare. Mythic Rares don't normally come with downsides... except the fact that they are often Legendary... which, I'm not using as an argument here... I just think that's kind of weird.

@Jack and Cymerdown: Well, actually, I was thinking top down (This is a creature that explores new lands for a world he's never seen. Each new location he finds is Legendary... even finding a Plains to him would be a unique location.), but I can see how difficult it is to relay my top down design without being able to change his name, or give him appropriate flavor text. When other players can't see where I'm coming from, yeah, "You control Legendary Lands" is a mechanical setback.

I do find it strange, though, that no one came back to me with "This card is way too good. A 4/4 for ? That gets better as the game moves along? And the only thing I have to do is cut 5 Forests out of my commander deck and replace them with non-basics that do the same thing? Absurd." I guess that goes a long way to show how much people just don't like drawbacks, even interesting and evocative ones that ask you to find a way to build around them, and give you a great reward (It also probably shows how little people want to mess around with their mana bases. Only a subset of Magic players would have fun making a list of the 23 non-basic lands they control that will hit the deck, I suppose).

That negative response made me bop back this card from Mythic to Rare again. Even in the Differently named lands model, it's still a build-around-me, and I guess cards you build around aren't Mythic. When you draft a Mythic, like Dude pointed out, you're supposed to windmill slam it into your deck. I don't think I like that personally, but I know the majority Magic players expect it. Who am I to argue?

I also cleaned up the regeneration clause so that it's just simple regen again, without number of lands counting. I got a little too wrapped in cleverness.

I think I prefer Legendary Lands more, since it is cleaner, fits the feel of New Mirrodin (which is already full of Legends) better, and is a tougher challenge, and therefore grants a greater reward. That being said, I prefer my cards to be liked and (in theory) played. Well, that, and Cymerdown does make a good point with the opponent controlling the same land I do... that's very icky. Switching back to "differently named lands".

Even though the current implementation seems similar to the legendary lands version, I like this a lot more. A large part of it is that while the other version punished playing multiples of a land, this rewards playing singleton lands. Though the result is similar, one way is feel-good and the other is feel-bad.

Since the base P/T is 0/0, couldn't the first ability merely say "~'s power and toughness are each equal to the number of differently named land you control."?

I agree with dude1818, this version feels a bit cleaner and easier to use. I liked where you were going with this card, I just wasn't a big fan of that particular implementation. I love cards that push deck builders in new directions to use them efficiently, though, and this card does that. Great design! :)

This version feels better. Shouldn't "differently named lands" say "lands with different names?"

I don't prefer those asterisk's, but that's a personal choice, and not modern templating. It should look more like a -goyf, so it is now. Also, Bazaar of Wonders seems to agree with you Link. Adverbs are terrible anyhow, and I'm happy to murder them.