On Holden Fortress, Vitenka and I have been having a discussion as to what the correct power level for enter-the-battlefield-tapped lands are supposed to be. He said that he always felt that they were similar in power level to the signets, so he always imagined them as being two casting cost cards. I've heard that comment before from other people, but it always struck me as false. There are very few lands that have abilities that strike me as as powerful as a 2-cost artifact.

When I went to bed last night, though, it occurred to me that we were all looking at the wrong evidence. The effect of Jungle Shrine isn't equivalent to Obelisk of Naya. To get that effect, you'd need to not only have access to the colors, but somehow be able to accelerate into a five drop. Instead, Jungle Shrine gives you the power of Lush Growth. When you play an ETB tapped land, you get a free, uncounterable, one-cost Enchant Land, with the drawback being that you must play that enchant land when you play the land.

That makes a lot more sense. The power levels are still off. Sejiri Steppe, for example, forces you to play a poor sorcery... but still a sorcery that one could imagine costs in common. Leechridden Swamp feels like it could be an uncommon enchant land with a cost of . Cathedral of War could be a rare enchant lands that cost .

So, I figured I'd mock up Mishra's Factory as a one-cost enchant land. If you're to follow my logic, then Earthlore ETB tapped and Racecourse Fury etb tapped should be acceptable, albeit powerful. Obviously, though, you can't just accept this rule as outright law. After all, Wild Growth is not an acceptable benefit for having a land enter the battle tapped.

Fascinating thesis. I can see it. Earthlore-as-a-land is interestingly comparable to Pendelhaven.

(Background for some others who might not know it: The two-cost artifact theory observes the identical rules text on Adarkar Wastes vs Talisman of Progress and their cycles, and on Skycloud Expanse vs Azorius Signet and their cycles, and on Shimmering Grotto vs Prismatic Lens; and infers that in a number of cases a nonbasic land's rules text might aim to be of comparable power to a two-mana artifact, or vice versa. There are several cases where that doesn't apply, but it's interesting to observe and theorise about cases where it does and doesn't. Other examples: Exotic Orchard vs Fellwar Stone; and somewhat less exactly, Gemstone Mine vs Sphere of the Suns, Reflecting Pool vs Star Compass, Rupture Spire vs Manalith, Mishra's Factory vs Guardian Idol. In the cases where the parallelism isn't exact, usually it's an ETBT on one side or the other, and usually the land ends up more powerful.)

Forget Wild Growth ... Abundant Growth!

But plenty of others do seem fine. Consecrate Land I think exists? Evil Presence of course, isn't even ETB tapped :) And while Racecourse Fury seems powerful, Need for Speed seems fine.

I think this is largely because roughly equals , but.

"After all, Wild Growth is not an acceptable benefit for having a land enter the battle tapped."

Actually, a land doesn't even have to enter tapped to get Wild Growth -- the land with wild growth on is Forest

I think what muddled me is that the "equivalent to a 2-cost artifact" comparison includes producing mana. So you could say (with many exceptions in each case):

• "All of a land is approximately equivalent to a 2-cost artifact"
• "An extra benefit on a land in addition to tapping for colourless or ETB and tapping for coloured might be ????"

Where maybe ???? is "a 1 cost aura" or "a 0 cost sorcery" or similar? I'm not sure, but it seems something like that.

­Darksteel Citadel is indeed a land with a built-in Consecrate Land. Well, half of one.

@Jack Wild Growth doesn't filter mana, it accelerates it. As a land, its closest analogs are the Karoo-style lands (either the Visions ones or the slightly more powerful Ravnica ones).