Could Legends possibly be the set with the widest spread between card quality? You've got some of the absolute worst cards (seen here) and some of the most game-changing (ie mana drain).
Laguz
★★★★☆ (4.3/5.0)(3 votes)
This card has way too much flavor to be so crappy. This cycle of 'lands' consistently ranks among the worst cards ever printed and for good reason.
lothrazar
★★★☆☆ (3.1/5.0)(4 votes)
I know its only uncommon, but it should at least give real banding. Bands with other is strictly worse.
Would be nice if it made colourless mana too.
Guest57443454
★★★☆☆ (3.6/5.0)(5 votes)
Even if this cycle of lands had a mana ability, I still think this is the worst cycle ever printed...
Lateralis0ne
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
I know Legends (and, in effect, all the initial sets) were at times game-breaking, and at others just horrible...but god, I love the flavor that oozes from them. This card is horrible...but the whole cycle just makes me warm and fuzzy inside, just like the vanilla Legendary creatures....Something about those first cards that make me wish I had played the game then, just to have them.
A3Kitsune
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Now M10 has changed how 'Bands with Other' works, this is a better card. Still poor, but better then it was. Now, if it could tap for green mana, it would be playable in a legend-heavy deck.
CharnelhoardWurm
★★☆☆☆ (2.6/5.0)(6 votes)
combo with a green storm crow
ClockworkSwordfish
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(3 votes)
Banding is not actually that awful if you focus on it and can figure out how it works. That said, WHO THE *** WOULD BUILD A BANDING DECK!? Even if you did THAT, there is no reason you would run this piece-of-*** land.
If you voted this >0.5, I will find you.
Radagast
★★★☆☆ (3.6/5.0)(4 votes)
Delightfully horrible. Can I give this card a -1 star?
DacenOctavio
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
A land that doesn't produce mana or fetch you a land that produces mana. I'm sad :(
Drewsel
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(4 votes)
This card exudes awesomeness. You know you want to build a deck around it.
SkyknightXi
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
From what I can tell, this cycle was SUPPOSED to be the justification for such otherwise (and potentially still, despite the initial scheme) low-wattage legends as The Lady of the Mountain and Tobias Andrion. Andrion's advantage over Serra Angel and Air Elemental was that once you got the Cathedral of Serra and/or Seafarers' Quay out, he'd have banding, every turn (not every other turn like with Helm of Chatzuk, not to mention the banding would be for more than just one creature). Very selective banding, yes, but it WAS within the adventurers' party (q.v. D&D personal campaign inspirations); the Cathedral & Co. were where the adventurers met and formed that party. In fact, extrapolating from the whole situation with Andrion, I think the original intent was that you were EXPECTED to use these lands to create the adventuring party, and thus bring the legends to their intended potential. Very strictly top-down design, but I think the problem was just overestimating how powerful banding was.
rinoh20
★★★☆☆ (3.5/5.0)(3 votes)
you know that those banded legends are waiting in the tarvern for teh dungeon to open so they can loot it and kill ancient evils. role for iniative.
scumbling1
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
"Very strictly top-down design, but I think the problem was just overestimating how powerful banding was."
This is an interesting notion. In the same set they printed the Hammerheim cycle of cards -- lands that produced colored mana, entered the battlefield untapped, and had a non-mana ability. Clrearly, the design team wasn't afraid to print lands that were better than basics.
So why did this cycle suffer from a lack of a mana ability of any sort? Why not even a tap for colorless? My only guess is that having one would make this cycle too similar to the other bunch of lands. The possibility that they overestimated the power of banding seems just as probable, now that you mention it.
hid@n
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Possibly one of the coolest card names ever.
yyukichigai
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
With Bands with Other having been made a lot better with the updated rules in Magic 2010, this card isn't nearly as bad. Of course it's still awful, it's just no longer atrocious.
Also, am I the only one who thinks "Adventurer's Guildhouse" sounds like a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon?
Voriki
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
.......maybe I'll be called an idiot or something of a similar definition but...I don't really understand why this is bad. Sure it doesn't get you mana, but in the absolute best green decks you should be playing most of your creatures for free anyway with either Elf Pipers or Lurking Predators in my opinion. So stuffing a deck full of different legendary creatures (no immediate downside there other than making poor choices with what works together) is added to when they can all attack as a band....at least that's how it appears to me.
If I'm wrong that's fine but I don't really see why everyone rates this card so low. I mean feel free to judge me if I'm missing something but....making a giant horde of green creatures attack as one...doesn't seem that bad.
omni8000
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
not great, but i think its pretty cool and oozes tons of flavor. art looks nice too
Vishlord
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
@lothrazar Any legendary creatures can attack in a band as long as at least one has "bands with other legendary creatures."
In a normal band all but one attacker must have banding. So not strictly worse.
tHeMightyyAK123
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Top of the power nine for overall usefulness and utility in any situation. When would I not want my green legends to band?
ChumleyX
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I actually use one of these (along with a Cathedral of Serra) in a / legendary creature deck. Every creature is a legend, along with 4x Captain Sisay and a couple Reki, the History of Kamigawa for card draw, and Day of Destiny and Sword of the Chosen for creature buffs. It's a super-fun deck, full of flavorful singletons, and these "bands with others" lands are exceptional. Banding, outdated as it may be, remains a fantastic ability.
Yes, I realize it's a pretty bad card overall due to its limited focus, but in the deck I described, it's a 0-costed hard-to-remove permanent that shines every time I play it.
DivineNocturnus
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
You would think that legends wouldn't want their guildhouse to look like a barn.
TheWrathofShane
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Needs to tap for , and it would be playable today. That would make a cool deck!
x24 Different green legendary creatures x16 Green Supporting Spells x20 Forests x4 of these bad boys.
Lands that don't produce mana are very hard to play. You end up having to take out deckspace from your nonland cards. Just to use your lands that are not really lands. Thats why this cycle gets a .5/5 from me.
Anzu-chan
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
That was a very flavorful cycle. It so bad that they have effects that s**k.
Wizard should redo this cycle, but without the puke on it. Instead of giving crap, the land give to your legendary creature a nice keyword that belong to the color.
- Aventurer Inn T : Add G to your mana pool. Green Legendary Creatures you control have Hexproof
-Church of Serra T : Add W to your mana pool. White Legendary Creatures you control have Lifelink
-Mountain Hideout T : Add R to your mana pool Red Legendary Creatures you control have Haste.
-Tolarian Quay T : Add U to your mana pool. Blue Legendary Creatures you control have Flying
-Unholy Tower T : Add B to your mana pool. Black Legendary Creatures you control have Deathtouch.
Just an idea like that.
EGarrett01
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.5/5.0)(1 vote)
Bands with Other.
It's been 20 years and I still don't get it.
Raexs
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I am absolutely enamored by everything about this card except for the textbox.
Comments (26)
Would be nice if it made colourless mana too.
If you voted this >0.5, I will find you.
This is an interesting notion. In the same set they printed the Hammerheim cycle of cards -- lands that produced colored mana, entered the battlefield untapped, and had a non-mana ability. Clrearly, the design team wasn't afraid to print lands that were better than basics.
So why did this cycle suffer from a lack of a mana ability of any sort? Why not even a tap for colorless? My only guess is that having one would make this cycle too similar to the other bunch of lands. The possibility that they overestimated the power of banding seems just as probable, now that you mention it.
Also, am I the only one who thinks "Adventurer's Guildhouse" sounds like a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon?
Sure it doesn't get you mana, but in the absolute best green decks you should be playing most of your creatures for free anyway with either Elf Pipers or Lurking Predators in my opinion. So stuffing a deck full of different legendary creatures (no immediate downside there other than making poor choices with what works together) is added to when they can all attack as a band....at least that's how it appears to me.
If I'm wrong that's fine but I don't really see why everyone rates this card so low. I mean feel free to judge me if I'm missing something but....making a giant horde of green creatures attack as one...doesn't seem that bad.
In a normal band all but one attacker must have banding. So not strictly worse.
Yes, I realize it's a pretty bad card overall due to its limited focus, but in the deck I described, it's a 0-costed hard-to-remove permanent that shines every time I play it.
x24 Different green legendary creatures
x16 Green Supporting Spells
x20 Forests
x4 of these bad boys.
Lands that don't produce mana are very hard to play. You end up having to take out deckspace from your nonland cards. Just to use your lands that are not really lands. Thats why this cycle gets a .5/5 from me.
Wizard should redo this cycle, but without the puke on it. Instead of giving crap, the land give to your legendary creature a nice keyword that belong to the color.
- Aventurer Inn
T : Add G to your mana pool.
Green Legendary Creatures you control have Hexproof
-Church of Serra
T : Add W to your mana pool.
White Legendary Creatures you control have Lifelink
-Mountain Hideout
T : Add R to your mana pool
Red Legendary Creatures you control have Haste.
-Tolarian Quay
T : Add U to your mana pool.
Blue Legendary Creatures you control have Flying
-Unholy Tower
T : Add B to your mana pool.
Black Legendary Creatures you control have Deathtouch.
Just an idea like that.
It's been 20 years and I still don't get it.