How is consecrate land better? This can play D on all you lands including itself, for the same cost. Sure pesky black land auras maybe be out there, but Consecrate doesn't allow you to cast any buffs on yours. To be honest though, this is a sideboard/Wish card, and LD isn't as common as it once was so...
Posted By:
Arthindole
(8/14/2010 11:05:22 PM)
This is a card from the height of color hate. There were a relatively large number of spells, like Fissure, Flashfires, and Tsunami that flat out destroyed one or more lands. Honestly not a horrible card in that age.
The odd thing is that the Oracle wording gives your land an ability, whereas the original wording would be closer to "tap enchanted land: counter target spell...," an effect originating from Equinox, and thus white.
Posted By:
longwinded
(2/11/2011 8:34:48 PM)
I'm not gonna dvelve into the rules, but believe me this card worked. Before and after the sixth rule revolution this card say: No way you can destroy my lands! As long I keep the land untaped.
So use your Icy Manipulator to tap my land enchanted by Equinox and cast your Armageddon next.
Posted By:
tavaritz
(5/11/2011 2:36:06 PM)
I like cards that can read the future.
Posted By:
Gilgiga
(2/15/2010 5:52:54 PM)
It works perfectly fine under the rules.
A) A spell that would destroy one of your lands goes on the stack. Priority passes.
B) You tap the enchanted land. This ability goes on the stack. Priority passes.
C) Barring any other responses, priority circles and Equinox's ability resolves. The first spell is countered.
It works the same as, say, Turn Aside, except where Turn's restriction is "that targets a permanent you control," this one's is "that destroys a land". It's not like any spells pull a sneaky trick and suddenly grow the ability to destroy land; if it's on the stack, it's been declared what it's going to do.
Posted By:
Magnor_Criol
(12/23/2010 8:31:37 PM)
Consecrate Land seems more solid.
Posted By:
mrredhatter
(10/4/2009 2:16:24 PM)
I agree, however this could counter an Armageddon or other mass-destruction spell...however they both remain very narrow in application.
Posted By:
Guest57443454
(11/25/2009 5:34:23 PM)
Braid_of_Fire's Card of the Day #4
So this card is the perfect example of why I think classic Magic is better than it currently is.
Stay with me now. Usually when people decry the present, it's due to nostalgia or some other irrational sentiment, and while I cannot deny that such contributes towards my perception of the game, I started playing in Dissension and only in the years since have I been able to go back and drink in the old-Magic flavor and texture.
This is a card that is more evocative than almost any other I have encountered. Its art is dramatic and surreal, with a meaningful connection to its name and a bizarre one to its effect. This disconnect is powerful, though, because it forces the player to ask questions of the game of Magic in a way a modern card would struggle to do. Why should I worry about lands being destroyed? Does the relation of the sun to the Earth really cause such a drastic reactionary response? What kinds of c... (see all)
Posted By:
Palochka
(9/30/2012 1:51:04 PM)
Land destruction may not be as common as it once was, but this has a clever use for Commander. Run it alongside man lands and artifact lands as protection against board wipes. It won't stop a lot of things, but it will at least buy your massive token army more time against some of the most common wipes.
Posted By:
voidweaver
(4/2/2014 2:47:51 PM)
@Ekko
This only counters spells. Creatures in play arn't spells.
Posted By:
A3Kitsune
(6/29/2010 10:18:47 PM)