Whenever an opponent plays a land, you may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield.

Browse Alters View at Gatherer


Have (4) Thunderbeard , Azdranax , metalmagic , Mortiferus_Rosa
Want (6) brownwaterboys , TatsuKe , chrra , mufasamike , Rabu , Showa

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Commander 2016 (C16) Rare
Conspiracy: Take the Crown (CN2) Rare
Stronghold (STH) Rare

Combos Browse all


Format Legality
Tiny Leaders Legal
Noble Legal
Leviathan Legal
Magic Duels Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Vintage Legal
Vanguard Legal
Legacy Legal
Archenemy Legal
Planechase Legal
1v1 Commander Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Unformat Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal

Burgeoning occurrence in decks from the last year

Commander / EDH:

All decks: 0.07%

Green: 0.31%

GU (Simic): 0.5%

Golgari: 0.13%

Burgeoning Discussion

Paeldroth on Tuvasa of the Eternal Aeon | Primer

6 hours ago


I love this! I also have a Tuvasa deck (Tuvasa's Gym Routine) which basically follows the same mindset as yours although WHAAHAYAHAY less competitive. Yours is delightful though!! I wish I had access to cards like Burgeoning, Sylvan Library, or those delicious OG dual lands.

Out of curiosity, what's your go-to aura or enchantment to tutor up?

Neotrup on Yarok, the Desecrated + Burgeoning ...

8 hours ago

The closest ruling I could find was for Teysa Karlov:

1/25/2019 An ability that triggers on an event that causes a creature to die doesn't trigger twice. For example, an ability that triggers "whenever you sacrifice a creature" triggers only once.

There aren't many abilities that trigger off of playing a land as opposed to a land entering the battlefield, so it isn't surprising that Yarok, the Desecrated doesn't have a ruling here, but to demonstrate the difference, consider what happens when an opponent plays a Kjeldoran Outpost without a plains to sacrifice. Burgeoning will trigger, but because Kjeldoran Outpost never entered the battlefield it's fairly evident that Yarok won't double it. Since it's an ability that triggers off of something distinct from entering the battlefield, even though it typically results in a permanent entering the battlefield, Yarok never sees it.

Kogarashi on Yarok, the Desecrated + Burgeoning ...

9 hours ago

I'd have to agree with the "Burgeoning isn't doubled by Yarok" ruling.

From the rules section on Lands:

  • 305.4. Effects may also allow players to “put” lands onto the battlefield. This isn’t the same as “playing a land” and doesn’t count as a land played during the current turn.

Since Burgeoning specifically triggers off of "playing a land," it's not the act of the land entering the battlefield that's triggering it, but the special action. If, somehow, a player was able to stop the land play from completing (akin to countering or stifling it, though that doesn't currently exist in the rules), Burgeoning would still have triggered, the same as any ability that triggers off of a spell being cast, even if that spell was countered before it could resolve.

So because of that, since it's not a permanent entering the battlefield, but a special action being taken, that is triggering Burgeoning, Yarok's ability is not implicated here.

It's a minor distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

dingusdingo on Staxing and Taxing: Glissa cEDH

3 days ago

You are welcome. I normally get more lukewarm responses from my in-depth analysis, so its refreshing to receive praise. I've taken another look at this bad boy, and here are the specific changes I would make, with a decent budget in mind (ofc Imperial Seal would be a great include but there are cheaper avenues to explore first).

I would advise thinking about the chromatic pieces another way. Its color fixing AND a draw AND metalcraft for , and you get repeat value from Glissa if there is nothing better to grab immediately (if there's a boardwipe, or you aren't getting pieces blown off the board, or you are able to continually snipe dorks/bears/commanders with Ulvenwald + Glissa). Even without Glissa, you've basically made yourself into a 97 card deck. With Glissa, you have a cheap ": draw a card" engine. It turns all your kill spells into cantrips, letting you dig faster to the combo, and grind out games that go longer. It also plays EXTREMELY well with any topdeck tutors, like Vampiric Tutor. I think there's a strong case for inclusion, but I can also see this list is chock-o-block full.

As far as the Sword. Its a nice card, but its mostly only helping you when you're already ahead. If you can't get an attacker to hit a player, you're not getting anything for paying mana to cast + equip. It also requires that you have a creature on board to get the uses out of it, which means you're slowed by casting + summoning sickness if someone else board wipes. Its a delayed slow reusable card, and its a reusable dork killer, both are unreliable for getting the triggers. Compare this to Jitte. Jitte gets triggers off ANY combat damage, and you get far more out of the triggers from Jitte. The -1/-1 until EOT is much better removal, and if something has bigger than 2 toughness you can always hold the counters. The 2 life refuels you when Confidant and other draw effects slurp you into danger range. The card draw is VERY nice, but being unreliable really makes me favor Jitte here. Of course I think the best choice would be Sword of Feast and Famine.

Grim Monolith is going to be outperformed by an elf here. Consider if either is in your opening hand. With an elf, you spend 1 mana on turn 1 to have 3 colored mana on turn 2. With Monolith, you spend 2 mana on turn 2 to have 3 colorless mana on turn 2. Monolith is expensive to untap, and you run no ways to artifically sacrifice Monolith to recur it untapped, or to untap it. You aren't running Monolith for an infinite combo either, which is another reason it is usually slotted.


Tree of Tales -> Forest

Vault of Whispers -> Swamp

Grim Monolith -> Llanowar Elves

Mana Web -> Fyndhorn Elves

Sword of Fire and Ice -> Elvish Mystic

Scrap Trawler -> Elves of Deep Shadow

Wurmcoil Engine -> Priest of Titania

Further Looking

I really think Exploration Burgeoning Azusa, Lost but Seeking Ramunap Excavator Wasteland and Ghost Quarter are a very powerful choice for stax. It means you will have to drop slots elsewhere though, which might require some more rethinking or reassembling of the deck. This also opens further lines and slots, such as Crop Rotation into Inventors' Fair to get Crucible of Worlds to replay Inventors' Fair to continue digging up pieces.

I also really think the chromatic + baubles have value here. Turns removal into cantrips, lets you play the longer value game.

I would advise you to investigate artifact based combos. You have artifact recursion in the command zone. If a piece gets blown out, you still have it in reach throughout the whole game until it is exiled. Currently, your combos are enchantment + enchantment and enchantment + artifact. Your combos also suffer from either requiring an untap stap (to get rid of summoning sickness), or causing each opponent to take 1 damage. Simply put, they are not instant wins. You're giving other opponents the ability to draw/play answers to the board and disassemble your win.

Gidgetimer on Yarok, the Desecrated + Burgeoning ...

3 days ago

You see, that is an interesting point and one that might be convincing. I got caught up in the "is it a trigger" line of thinking and didn't consider is it triggered from a permanent entering the battlefield. There is a precedent for triggers triggering off of special actions (every "when ___ is turned face up" on morph creatures) so I now agree with Rhadamanthus. Yarok, the Desecrated does not interact with Burgeoning. Not because it isn't a trigger, but because the trigger isn't caused by a permanent entering the battlefield.

Rhadamanthus on Yarok, the Desecrated + Burgeoning ...

3 days ago

I question whether it's truly exactly "a permanent entering the battlefield" causing the trigger here, since Burgeoning is written specifically to trigger when an opponent takes the special action of playing a land, but I don't have any good examples or convincing arguments to back up that position.

Gidgetimer on Yarok, the Desecrated + Burgeoning ...

3 days ago

Ok, so it is a triggered ability and will be copied by Yarok, the Desecrated. The two most simple pieces of proof to disprove the people arguing that it isn't a triggered ability are:

  1. The only Gatherer ruling on Burgeoning is "Playing a land will trigger it, but putting a land onto the battlefield as part of an effect will not." clearly indicating that it is a trigger, as well as why it says "play" instead of "enters the battlefield".

  2. The comprehensive rule defining what is a triggered ability is "603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”"

sabba5600 on Yarok, the Desecrated + Burgeoning ...

3 days ago

So this question came up and devolved into a 30 minute argument where people couldn't agree on the interaction.

If I have both Yarok, the Desecrated and Burgeoning on the field do i get to use burgeoning twice when an opponent "plays" a land (from hand)?

One side of argument says no because "Whenever an opponent plays a land, you may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield" is not a triggered effect that is copy able. The act of playing a land does not use the stack. and if it was intended this way should use wording similar to landfall that says whenever a land enters the battlefield (not played)

The other side says yes because the the wording of burgeoning uses the word "whenever" which is a triggered effect and Yarok makes a triggered ability of a permanent entering to happen again.

So is the Burgeoning triggered effect happening by the act of playing a land but not the land entering the battlefield thus ignoring the exact wording of Yarok?

pretty sure i covered the points well enough in this and was hoping to get more opinions on the question since a quick google found one judge who apparently ruled "yes burgeoning would trigger twice" and the group still disagreed and i am hoping to find more people who either agree or not.

Load more