Story event card. Turns land into a Lotus Petal.

Land destruction needs a much more sever drawback to get to cost less than three mana. Being symmetrical severe. This is unrestricted Uncontrolled Infestation powerful, Blight powerful.

With a restriction to nonbasic lands this could be possibly justified.

Makes sense. However, I have always had a stance that "nonbasic" land destruction could be buffed up. Uncontrolled Infestation for example, feels a bit too weak for me.

Like I could see a card like this:

­ Sorcery: Destroy target artifact or nonbasic land.

Also note that unlike Uncontrolled Infestation, this actually may help the opponent since it fixes the mana temporarily.

So, do you think that a cost (with nonbasic restriction) is absolutely bonkers?

I'll respond on here:

-Artifact created doesn't have a subtype. We even have 3 names for the tokens for this very effect (including Ixalan)! Gold, Treasure, and Etherium Cell. None really fit aside from maayyybbeee Treasure, but if you add a fourth type, I am sure no one will notice.

-Upon reading this card, I think targetting nonbasics only at makes sense for constructed purposes, but I might go with and destroy any land to echo Sinkhole. Sinkhole still isnt really a card I want to play with in limited either, especially in a nonmulticolor heavy format. My suggestion is to make it cantrip, (, especially since you want to push land destruction) since cantrips generally increase playability. Or to have it remove every copy of the nonbasic from graveyard/battlefield, to really punish greedy decks. And definitely include exile since utility lands and Tron lands are the only thing people actively remove in non land destruction decks, and the one land you have is indestructible.

In a given draft you really shouldn't be getting more than two of these at best, and even then it'll be rare. If this is purely limited, I would say throw baby-mode modern design conventions to the wind and go full old school and feel free to make this a little on the stronger side, especially if you make Black's removal suite relatively weak. There is a certain subset of players that really enjoy resource denial strategies, so you may want to play that up despite how unfun it is for the opponent. This already feels like an old school set, especially with its focus on non-creature based deck archetypes that aren't Rise from the Tides.

I could with "Silver", but then again, I think Ñoldorian Jewel-Wright would then also have to use it.

­Blight is the better/best comparison IMO. Using cantrip is a rather lazy design, I would rather not do it unless it makes sense with the design (regardless of power level). In this case, I would have to gut that lovely flavor text as well if I went with that plan.

I'm not actively pushing LD, but I don't mind having a couple of playable ones.

Now exile did pop into my mind, but then again, why use indestructible at all if the only card that could target it would exile it anyway? The reason is flavor, but it's counter intuitive mechanically (arms racing without real need). Fortunately, Disaster's Wake is in the set as well, so maybe going with exile isn't that bad.

That "every copy" idea could work...

> baby-mode modern design conventions

Oh boy... it's kind of awesome how true and yet controversial that statement is... but we're all just big babies, aren't we? ;)

If you wanna do nonbasic targetting only, go with exile. If you can target basics, go with destroy. No need to make that Indestructible text completely irrelevant.

Pushed and powerful, and I'm truly not sure this is even okay at BB. But I'd say test it out. I've always been a fan of land destruction.