Splendid Reclamation


Format Legality
Tiny Leaders Legal
1v1 Commander Legal
Magic Duels Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Vintage Legal
Modern Legal
Penny Dreadful Legal
Leviathan Legal
Legacy Legal
Frontier Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Unformat Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Eldritch Moon (EMN) Rare

Combos Browse all

Splendid Reclamation


Return all land cards from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped.

Price & Acquistion Set Price Alerts



Splendid Reclamation Discussion

goldlion on Google Ghave (Lands Matter Route)

1 day ago

Still haven't been able to go through it thoroughly, but here's a quick thought.

When I was doing a bunch of test runs with my current version, a large amount of basic lands seems strong with Boundless Realms, especially with a Scapeshift to lead in or follow after, and Splendid Reclamation or World Shaper. However, I also appreciate the swiss army land setup with the any-land searches the main theme already supplies.

With that in mind, what do you feel the top 8-10 Utility lands for this deck would be? Then perhaps a combo land of each colour combination for fixing? It seems like that's all that might be needed as the land searches often come quickly.

Or am I missing the boat on something bigger?

goldlion on Google Ghave, Search Engine of Doom *Help Wanted*

5 days ago

Definitely a great fit for this deck Abzkaban; I have it in the maybeboard under the landsmatter strategy. Not only would it be great late game with Ob Nixilis, the Fallen, but even if Ob Nixilis, Unshackled was my main strategy in a particular game, it's actually a fantastic early game mana fixer (especially with Crucible of Worlds or Ramunap Excavator in play), and mana ramper with World Shaper or Splendid Reclamation. It layers well as those last two cards also get Field of Ruin back in a pinch, and Scapeshift will get Field of Ruin from the library if I don't have it in play yet while Ob Nixilis, Unshackled is within reach. The two strategies combine well together.

It's been pure value in the playtests - you know something belongs in the deck when you're always happy to see it on the topdeck.

I was thinking I'd share the test-pilot deck with you and a few others when I have it a little further as I would appreciate some help tuning it a bit more before making it public.

Would you be interested, Abzkaban? also, hkhssweiss, NeverCloud, Hi_diddly_ho_neighbor, SynergyBuild, Heliogabale, Nrdman? I think we might be able to make this "THE" Ob, Nixilis deck...

SynergyBuild on Land Destruction: A social conversation

5 days ago


I never claimed that perception didn't make it seem worse, however perception doesn't make it worse. Players who don't play around MLD might be screwed, if they don't sandbag unnecessary lands they are asking for it though.

This idea is a very simple one that many players, especially in EDH are familiar with, "overextending into a board wipe". Heard of it?

My points never stated that players should love MLD, they shouldn't, but they can't cope with things they outright ban, and you trying to support their idealistic world of no interaction is downright disgusting. If a player loses to something, they should either

A: Not get mad, because it was a loss out of luck.

B: Not get mad, learn something from it, perhaps play around it, change their playstyle.

C: Get mad, because the loss was unwarranted, and was predicated on collusion (players teaming up outside of the game), something outside of the game outside of collusion (an example is a player conceding when you stole a permanent of theirs, therefor depriving you of a resource you fairly gained), or something inside of the game that is broken for obvious reasons, such as a combo that is particularly degenerate due to game rules that do not work in the given format (many believe Felidar Sovereign falls under this category).

Which does land destruction fall under? No one has been able to convince me that C is the appropriate response, and a deck built around it is most likely much more consistent than A would have me believe.

This implies that B is the proper response.

If you think we should frown upon learning experiences, you know, like any interaction, win, or play in any game of magic, then you might as well not play, or is there something so integrally broken about the removal of lands that it in particular is the focus of contempt?

Secondly, I will quote you, Azdranax, and ask you to clarify further, your sentence #3, paragraph #5, comment #26:

"MLD leaves many players bitter in a way that no other strategy does."

Leovold shutting off hands, GAAIV stax type decks, stax decks of nearly any kind, decks that use Blood Moon, Contamination, Back to Basics, Static Orb, Hall of Gemstone, Winter Orb, Stasis, Tangle Wire, and other cards of that vein, decks that abuse discard like Nath and any deck with Sadistic Hypnotist for that matter, any deck that takes advantage of infinite turns or particularly long turns that imply storm or another slow to watch, difficult to interact with once it is going off style deck.

Yes, many of these are frowned upon, yet Land Destruction is the target of much more hate. Why? Can you explain that to me?

Above was my argument to anyone like Shrazik who reads your BS, Azdranax, I honestly didn't dislike you until the last paragraph.

Nope, not one bit, but at that point I was considering going off on you, however thought that anyone who read this would think I didn't have a rebuttal to your first 5 paragraphs. Those are above.

Here is a quote, sentence #2, paragraph #6, comment #26. Don't hand me BS like this anecdote again, as anyone with half-working eyes and a quarter-working brain can see that it won't work:

"Recently, a fairly competitive pod of 4 I was playing in lost to a Lord Windgrace deck that cast Silence + Armageddon + Splendid Reclamation on turn 6 - it was a brilliant play and the game was over in less than 10 minutes from that play."

Nice, a jund (Lord Windgrace's color identity of , , and ) deck that can run Armageddon and Silence. Also, nice that a combo that a third grader could see from miles away is considered "brilliant" in a moderately competitive table. BTW that combo takes 9 mana and seems like hot trash for even moderate cEDH IMO, specifically Splendid Reclamation, as Windgrace can do that effect himself.

Nice fake anecdote Azdranax.

Also, try not to claim that Ruination and Autumn's Veil are the cards at hand, or that he cycled Decree of Annihilation, or that Impending Disaster was the real effect, as all of those are extremely different and memorably so.

I almost could respect you.

Shrazik I hope your eyes glanced over the end, so you didn't see Azdranax's BS in the last paragraph that you quoted, however I will attempt to answer your questions anyway.

"Going a little off topic here but do you think that delves deeper into a more community based issue? One where players would ignore how wrong or right a strategy/playstyle might be in favor of their own perception of what should or shouldn't be played within their playgroup?"

This is the reason that I personally don't play casual EDH, it is competitive EDH, but less compassionate to new strategies, and is so toxic I just can't handle it.

The vast majority of formats, cEDH, Standard, Modern, Pauper, Legacy, Vintage, etc. are all more accepting than casual EDH, so I have just had to stop playing it. Almost every other MTG community is cool with land destruction, Ponza lists in modern are fun midrange strategies that blow up lands and want to go turn one Arbor Elf, turn two Utopia Sprawl and get 4 mana for some sick plays early on. It is a nice and hilarious deck.

Other times it has occurred in modern like in some newer Ramunap Excavator/Azusa, Lost but Seeking/Ghost Quarter lists with Collected Company in modern the decks have been cool but not oppressive, and though they can be rough matchups for some decks, they aren't ever called out to be banned or anything, and even in Vintage when Shops, a deck with some land destruction (Strip Mine, etc.) was a problem the issue was the turn one Lodestone Golem, not land destruction, and no one really minded or thought Wasteland should be restricted, but the Golem should.

As you can see, toxicity of casual EDH isn't much further, but is a problem for a lot of less toxic players who play EDH casually and want to bring a fun, janky Hokori, Dust Drinker to the table, but are banned from playgroups (anecdotal, and an example, not anyone I know, but I have heard of this situation).

Outside of land destruction, I think combo is pretty fair game as long as it doesn't do something unable to be interacted with. Like Flash Hulk turn two is cool, but Spell Pierce exists, so does Spell Snare, Swan Song, Containment Priest, Rest in Peace, Grafdigger's Cage, Leyline of the Void, Force of Will, etc.

Azdranax on Land Destruction: A social conversation

5 days ago

SynergyBuild While I agree with almost all of your points in isolation, and I personally do not have an issue with MLD strategies as I previously noted, I think you are potentially missing the underlying issue players really have with MLD - one of perception far more than reality. Lands are the single-most important resource to playing Magic, regardless of deck strategy, with few exceptions.

Decks are typically optimized with lands (number and variety) to ensure they are able to cast their chosen spells on curve in order to execute the deck's desired effect(s). While completely legitimate to play in my opinion, MLD denies this opportunity better than any other strategy, leaving players unable to play their deck to anywhere near their desired effectiveness. In my experience, dating back to Unlimited, nothing frustrates players more (in general) than being mana screwed.

As you've pointed out in many different examples, the game can be simplified around the principles of resource aggregation and resource denial. MLD is really no different than any other method of this principle, but that's not the perception by players in game. Drawing several high CMC spells when you lack the mana resources to play them is considered bad luck or RNG, while being unable to play any spells due to MLD destroying the resources in order to do so is considered taboo. Reality says there isn't much of a difference in various mass resource denial effects, but perception clearly says there is a difference with MLD for the majority of players. The hope of a "top deck" miracle draw that could conceivably work against other deck strategies pretty much flies out the window with MLD.

This concept tends to be reinforced when MLD does little to create an advantage for the player choosing to destroy the lands as well, for example an Alesha player with commander on board who Armageddon's on turn 4, hoping to at worst start discarding into reanimation options while everyone tries to recover. The typical commander deck build is going to take roughly 7-8 turns to draw into three more lands, based on drawing for turn alone, which is where the issue becomes engrained, as it then boils down to the most limited actual resource available to players, which is time.

Depending on your LGS or playgroup, you may have any range of time available for games, from an hour or two up to an entire day or more. Combining the perception of being mana screwed with the reality of losing time to recovering those land resources, MLD leaves many players bitter in a way that no other strategy does. Is that really accurate, in that MLD stalls and extends a game anymore than a solid stax deck does...ultimately I'd say probably not, but I'd also say that's clearly not the perception of most players, and changing player perception is an even tougher proposition than overcoming MLD.

Again, as I previously said, in any moderately competitive environment, MLD shouldn't be viewed any differently than any other resource denial strategy. Recently, a fairly competitive pod of 4 I was playing in lost to a Lord Windgrace deck that cast Silence + Armageddon + Splendid Reclamation on turn 6 - it was a brilliant play and the game was over in less than 10 minutes from that play. However, the less competitive the environment, the more poorly MLD is likely to be received, and the less effectively it is likely to be played. In so much, this argument's perception becomes reality. In reality, your arguments are valid and fairly well supported, but the perception leaves those arguments falling on many deaf ears.

WickedlyRested on Omnath Storm

6 days ago

I have thought about adding Splendid Reclamation, it seems like an ok choice for longer games. That being said, the only time where i have a lot of lands in my graveyard is after Scapeshift, and if you've already successfully used scapeshift you shouldn't need to do it again. I see it as a bit of a win-more card.

Braingamer on Bad Frog

6 days ago

hkhssweiss I agree about Drown in Filth but The Mending of Dominaria is the only other mass land reanimation other than Splendid Reclamation in the deck so I like it for that reason. But thanks for the help!

hkhssweiss on Omnath Storm

6 days ago

Mmm I see, and have you tried out Splendid Reclamation or that doesn't have too much use for you?

LandoLRodriguez on Windy Kitty's Landfall Engine

1 week ago

KayneMarco While it doesn't appear in my maybeboard list of cards, I did briefly consider World Shaper, and here's why I don't like him: As a general rule, unless playing some very specific mechanics, I don't like any card that blindly sends cards from my library to my graveyard. I really only have Elixir of Immortality for non-land recursion in this deck and I'm really gonna want to get to my Crucible of Worlds to get things going. I think I'd immediately tear up World Shaper the first time he sent it to my graveyard if I were playing him. As far as the second ability, while his death does cause a Splendid Reclamation (which you'll see I'm also not running here) which could be a bomb play with the right board state, I don't like that I wouldn't necessarily have much control over when that happens. A well timed opponent removal spell with either no/few lands in the GY or no/few landfall triggers available and World Shaper is more or less a vanilla 3/3 for 4 to me. I certainly see the possibilities but I just felt like I didn't have a slot for him. Thanks for the suggestion though, greatly appreciated! I certainly used your Windgrace deck for some ideas as I was building this one.

Load more