Why exactly do you need to make a land
indestructible? Well, when tapping that land
gives a creature +1/+1, you might find yourself
wanting to protect it. Trouble is, the Garrison
doesn't protect itself, and that's what people
will be gunning for-- not the land it's on. So
it might save a land from a Boom//Bust, or
possibly make a fierce combo with Dryad Arbor or
any other man-lands, but mostly it's not really
going to do all that much.
A type of equipment card for lands. The
indestructibility this grants is fairly useless
(Darksteel Citadel wasn't played for that) and
the +1/+1 ability can be fairly useful, as it
works even if you tap the land for mana. I think
the card is very overcost at 5 mana before you
can start doing anything, though, which leads to
it being pretty pointless, as the ability would
go best in the aggro decks and this is too
slow/expensive for them.
In casual, I don't see why you'd want to play
In limited, a pretty low pick for me. +1/+1 is
useful, as always, but this is pretty slow to
get going and it's a rare, so I'd just skip it
unless there's nothing better.
version of equipment for lands! This looks like
a very promising "future" mechanic. So far this
is the only card of the sorts. This card is
good against LD decks. But it will be seen the
most long with Dryad Arbor. It makes this
creature into a 2/2 indestructible
Constructed - 3
Limited - 2
Casual - 2
Memnarch's darksteel minions have gone into the
private security business! Equipment for a land
is quite odd, but I could see this being played
somewhere. You'd probably be better off
attaching the Garrison to a land which has an
activated ability that involves tapping, like
Vitu-Ghazi; I saw some people at the Future
Sight pre-release trying to use it on basic
lands and it was difficult to arrange having a
creature in play that could attack that turn,
when they needed to play a spell anyway.
Constructed: another one of Future Sight’s “new”
keywords that are just rehashs of old mechanics
changed slightly to make them appear exciting
and different; in this case, just Equip for
lands. I don’t know about you, but I’m not too
inclined to pay 5 mana to make one of my lands
indestructible with a mediocre secondary effect.
Casual/Multi: If land destruction is that
prevalent in your casual group there are many
other ways to fight back against it, including
Sacred Ground and Life from the Loam. Mayb e if
you were playing some kind of Darksteel theme
deck, but even then I still have to say pass on
this fairly worthless artifact.
Limited: There aren’t enough land destruction
effects in block that you would need to protect
against, unless you drafted a Bust as well. So
this card will too often just be 5 mana spent
for the ability to tap land for a +1/+1 and then
burn at end of phase. Remember that if you tap
this you have to give something +1/+1 even if
you don’t control a creature. Just pass this
along to someone else, and hope they think it’s
better than it is.
for just over 5 years
-Playing MTG for just over 10
Can't hurt to make a land indestructable. If you
get this in combo with the new green 1/1 that is
a land/creature (I forget the name) you have a
decent combo that will be very hard to get rid
of. I like this card but it will be limited in
its use. There are already indestructable lands
that don't need to be made indestructible.
Limited: 2 (only if you can combo with the card
Magic Noob in Canada since 2002
No. Having a
land indestructible doesn't do much against land
destruction as this will never come out an
successfully fortify a land.
Having this on a land still wouldn't do much as
a single land will
still mean good game against any deck.
If you're not facing land destruction, then this
is useless. Oh, am I
forgetting about the +1/+1 thing? Nope. That
thing is super overcosted.
When a overcosted ability joins forces with an
already bad card, the
result is still unplayability.
Copyrightę 1998-2007 pojo.com
This site is not sponsored, endorsed, or
otherwise affiliated with any of the companies or
products featured on this site. This is not an