Black Lotus

Legality

Format Legality
Vintage Legal
Tiny Leaders Legal

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Vintage Masters Rare
Unlimited Edition Rare
Collector's Edition Rare
International Collector's Edition Rare
Limited Edition Beta Rare
Limited Edition Alpha Rare

Combos Browse all

Black Lotus

Artifact

, Sacrifice Black Lotus: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.

View at Gatherer Browse Alters

Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts

Cardhoarder (MTGO) -22%

51.6 TIX $168.86 Foil

Isle of Cards

$6345.27 Paper

Card Kingdom

$6499.99

Ebay

Recent Decks

VIN 0 / 0
VIN 0 / 0
MTGO 0 / 0
Load more

Black Lotus Discussion

Guftders on Iconic Masters Announced

2 days ago

Time for history lesson! :D

The reserved list was drawn up after the first true reprint set "Chronicles" was released. Players were soo outraged that their cards had dropped in value, that many people were leaving the game en masse.

In response, the Reserved List was announced. They promised to NEVER reprint any of the cards from ALL of the sets had been printed prior to Chronicles. This list of sets included: Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Revised, Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, The Dark, Fallen Empires, Ice Age, Homelands, Alliances, Mirage, Visions, Weatherlight, Tempest, Stronghold, Exodus, AND FINALLY the entirety of the Urza's block.

Of course, they didn't include any of the cards that had been reprinted prior to this lists creation.

The exact terms of the list, as quoted from their website, is as follows:

"Reserved cards will never be printed again in a functionally identical form. A card is considered functionally identical to another card if it has the same card type, subtypes, abilities, mana cost, power, and toughness. No cards will be added to the reserved list in the future. No cards from the Mercadian Masques set and later sets will be reserved. In consideration of past commitments, however, no cards will be removed from this list. The exclusion of any particular card from the reserved list doesn't Indicate that there are any plans to reprint that card."

Up until the release of From the Vault Relics, Wizards reserved the right to be able to reprint anything on the list in a premium format, as at the time of the lists creation, foils didn't exist. This led to a few interesting reprints:

Sadly, they removed this loophole with the announcement of From the Vault Relics.

Another interesting thing they did with the list, was remove ALL commons and uncommons from it due to the huge public support for the change.

In summary, the Reserved List is now just a list of all the rares from the sets leading up to, but not including, Mercadian Masques. Not all of them are powerful though some are due to the power level of the game at the time.

In fact, the cards on the list were not even that expensive at the time. I've been told that, once upon a time, Black Lotus was at $15. Heck, what's even more hilarious, is that there is an article explaining why they make bad cards, where Mark Rosewater showcases an angry letter he had received which complains about "sucky cards" one such example they used being Lion's Eye Diamond.

3InchMeatMonster on Drown Victims

1 week ago

Black Lotus would probably fit nicely, you should pick up a full set.

Winterblast on Kaho, Minamo Troll

2 weeks ago

It's a cool idea but like most of these kind of decks there is basically nothing to make it more reliable or faster than it is. You can't add extra cards because you want to have an empty library after exiling the lands and for the combo you need exactly the spells you have listed. You could exchange the counter for Mana Drain as it is strictly better...

It is a bit against the simple approach of the deck, but you could add stuff like Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Sol Ring, Mox Diamond, Lotus Petal, Lion's Eye Diamond (which becomes a Black Lotus here because for casting your commander you can ditch your hand of lands anyway) and some additional "free" draw spells, such as Gush or Gitaxian Probe to be able to draw through the remaining extra cards after the lands are gone. Including all fetchlands with blue could increase the chance of drawing one of the accelerating artifacts after shuffling. Everything that gets you into the combo earlier is fine - you just have to be able to draw the remaining cards within one turn in the end.

xavierthecartoonist on Imma burn

2 weeks ago

yes now run 9000x Black Lotus

rip wallet

AlexoBn on In light of the recent ...

2 weeks ago

MagicalHacker I really do think that you have a lot of prejudices about expensive cards and people who play competitive edh. Magic will always feature people trying to break cards. It will simply always be like that. If you really do not ban all green and white tutors (even on creatures) you will not be able to deal with my elfball deck (ie) because it is super fast drawing so much cards that it is even unnecessary to have all existing tutors. Same will be true for other combos. If might just sit there with a pillowfort deck and win when I happen to draw into Palinchron and deck myself with tasigur. You can not solve this problem by banning. You would more or less destroy the complete format. So it is IMHO better to just say "Alex, screw your deck I'll rather play alone than with you" and try to establish house rules. I can totally understand people who are not willing to drop thousands of dollars on a top level magic deck but then you simply do not need to play against those decks. Proposing each tournament to feature a different banlist is absolutely insane. You will never be able to build a deck that you can use on all tournaments because of random bans and that is just because of people who want to tell everyone how much to spend on their hobby and which playstyle to play? No I will never accept such a situation and this will make a lot of people quit I guess. You will also not be able to balance the power of the 5 colours in commander. To explain why I am so confident about keeping the banlist at an absolute minimum is also a couple of matches we had today. A guy in our playgroup is allowed to play Time Vault and Black Lotus because he plays a super fun and casual deck. EDH is always about the groups regulating themselves in terms of choosing the right powerlevel to play an focusing the best deck in a match. If this is not happening already you will be super upset about the result of your bans (because there will be people like me still trying hard af to break the cards).

MagicalHacker on In light of the recent ...

3 weeks ago

To everyone,

I appreciate the time and effort you all have put in the discussions! As much as I may disagree with some of you (or agree), I do enjoy discussing and debating these topics.

As I wrote in the OP, I also am curious to see what your ideal banlists would look like. Throw them out there! I am more than willing to hear other opinions and see other banlist proposals. :D


Bhaal666, since they are in the minority according to the statistics, I think it's fair that they be given the option to modify an official banlist to fit their needs/desires.

As for building what you like, this proposal does not prohibit you from doing cool things. What it does is make it more difficult (but still possible) for you to completely prohibit what your opponents want to do. If someone says that's unfair, how could anyone find that person a fun opponent? I honestly can't understand that.

Answers are not a perfect way to counteract combo decks in edh because having too many of them means you are losing too much card advantage (1v1 answer against opponent 1 gives opponent 2 and 3 advantages) and losing deck synergy (diluting strategies, such as the already disadvantaged aggro archetype).

AlexoBn, hey, I appreciate the effort put into refraining from personal attacks.

From all the statistics I have seen, more people play and enjoy playing tier 3-4 commander decks in a tier 3-4 environment than against tier 1-2 decks. Do you have any statistics that show this to be incorrect?

I've read Epoch's article, and it was interesting, but irrelevant for this particular discussion. The importance of a banlist is to ensure that the largest amount of people can have fun and stay in the format. I hear about many people dropping from commander because of not having enough money to compete with the decks that are at the only LGS they can go to. I think it's downright immoral to tell someone they can't play this amazing game with you because they don't have enough money, and when the banlist allows for decks to dominate against the average deck by costing somewhere in the 2K+ range, that's what the banlist is allowing. You say that Strip Mine beats Gaea's Cradle, but just because something has an answer does not mean its bad or even not broken. What is the purpose of a banlist to you?

Would you play a game of no-banlist commander? That option would still exist even if this banlist were adopted. In fact, then it would mean that those who want to play a faster version of commander could easily do so because they talked beforehand about it. That seems better than someone in a playgroup trying to convince his buddies to add more cards to the banlist.

iAzire, do you feel the same way about not being able to play cards with the current banlist? Then why not suggest playing no-banlist commander either now or in the hypothetical situation where a banlist like my proposed one was official? I think you suggesting banning counterspells is mostly irrelevant. I honestly don't see the connection you are trying to make.

The point of any good banlist is not to ban every unfun card. But even with that, I can't think of a single card that I think is oppressively unfun that isn't on my proposed banlist.

Epochalyptik, well then I am offering insight into my perspective of what is unbalanced as well, with supporting reasons.

In the past, pricing has not been a factor in banlist legislation, and what have we got? We currently have a format in which the best decks cost too much for the average player, meaning that the game/format rewards not necessarily those with the most skills in the game, but rather those with the most money invested. Name one game where people are proud that those who spend more money win more often. I guarantee that on the whole, more players of this game and every other game enjoy the game more when the difference between the worst deck and the best deck is significantly LESS than $2,000.

I don't think that consistency is the enemy. I just think that in a format where inconsistency is an important aspect of the environment it creates (as you said), eliminating that inconsistency is unbalanced at the same cost as in other formats. Do you really think a tutor that can search 1 out of 10-14 in other formats and 1 out of 35-45 in this format is balanced at the same mana? I don't.

As for the result, I can only estimate what the result would be, as can everyone. My estimation is that such a banlist would allow for a better experience for players playing against strangers for the first time.

DuTogira, you make a lot of solid points, but many people aren't fortunate to have a choice in where they go to play commander, for one reason or another. In those cases, because of a poor banlist, they can't play Commander.

robbnoble, I believe how good a card is is relative to the format. Black Lotus is bad in standard. It gets you killed automatically!

Silly situations aside, regardless of the banlist, some cards will be revealed to be good of the cardpool.

Chandrian, what is the point of a good banlist? I believe it is to facilitate fun games when people play against strangers. Without a banlist, strangers would most likely not have a good time as there are lots of cards that can guarantee they cannot do what they sat down to do: play magic.

Epochalyptik on In light of the recent ...

3 weeks ago

@MagicalHacker: Black Lotus is probably banned in part because it's expensive. But it's also banned because the effect is broken, as almost anybody playing this game will admit.

Further, if Black Lotus were banned on the basis of price, it still wouldn't prove that price-based format management is appropriate.

Keep in mind that this is a trading card game. It's based by design on economic principles. Like I tell people whenever they complain about the Reserved List: you are not entitled to play. You are not entitled to own every card. You get what you pay for. If you can't or don't want to pay as much as someone else, that's your problem; it's not a concern for format legislation.

Second, consistency has almost nothing directly to do with why the format spread quickly. The fact that Commander is a unique experience and that it opens up many possibilities that simply don't exist in other modes of play are better explanations for its spread. And yes, a designed handicap to consistency has something to do with creating that environment, but that doesn't mean that consistency is the enemy or that decks must adhere to a hypothetical and arbitrary standard of inconsistency to be acceptable.

Third, my last question was rhetorical. I was challenging you to envision the impact of your proposal and what kind of environment it would create.

Load more