New TCGs often borrow from Magic: The Gathering's resource mechanic, but none port it over unchanged. Instead, these titles all make very deliberate tweaks that go some ways towards smoothing out the perceived flaws. So are these new games simply upgrading an archaic system, or do Magic's lands hold a secret sauce?
Magic: The Gathering's lands and mana system has been fundamental to its success. It's an innovative way to add restrictions to play and allows the action to gradually ramp up over time. It's something that Pokémon implements too with energy and that Yugioh has never really bothered with - which is why Yugioh games now conclude in the first couple of turns.
Yet players complain about it constantly. To hear a Magic player tell it, every other match was lost because they drew too many lands when they needed a spell, or were stuck looking at a handful of creatures that they had no way to pay for. And certainly, the mechanic means that every so often you'll experience an MTG game that isn't: one which the land system turns into a foregone conclusion.
Outside of Japan, TCGs were in a fallow period up until recently, but right now the genre is in a silver age. We get about one serious and seriously well-funded newcomer each year. One Piece launched worldwide in 2022, then Disney Lorcana in 2023, followed by Star Wars Unlimited in 2024. Riftbound launched in 2025, and now the upcoming Cyberpunk card game is on the horizon.
All of these card games follow Magic: The Gathering's lead, incorporating a resource system that - usually - bears a strong resemblance to lands and mana. Cards are paid for using a resource or currency, and players' access to that currency grows linearly over the course of a game. Often, there's a direct stand-in for land cards. Lorcana has its inkable cards, the Cyberpunk TCG has its eddies, etc.
Yet every single one of these games changes up the formula significantly, tweaking the resource system to try and cut down on variance, removing or reducing the possibility of flooding or starving.
Riftbound and One Piece do this with an entirely different deck, meaning you're absolutely 100% guaranteed a certain number of resources each turn.
Star Wars, Lorcana, and Cyberpunk borrow from Japan's Duel Masters, by allowing you to cash in your regular cards, converting them into the resources you use within the game. This approach introduces an interesting extra level of decision-making, as each turn you now have to decide which card you can do without, or even if it's worth turning any of your playing pieces into 'mana'.
The fact that not one modern game has stuck with MTG's system, where you draw dedicated resource cards from a single deck, suggests that, at least from a designer's point of view, it's highly flawed. Are these new systems simply uncomplicated upgrades?
It's a difficult one to answer. I probably can't do it objectively, in fact, because Magic is my card game of choice, and I'm so used to it. Some players will argue that the fact that Magic has withstood the test of time, and none of these new games have come close to supplanting it with their 'better' resource system, proves the strength of Magic's mechanics, but I find that a fairly weak and unconvincing argument.
There are some strengths to the land system of Magic, however. It adds interesting choices, during deckbuilding if not during play. There are fewer artificial restrictions in Magic than many TCGs. You can build a deck with any number of colors and lands, but the more you pile in the more strain you place on your manabase, and the more likely you are to draw an unplayable hand.
TCGs that don't have a card type like Magic's lands or Pokémon's energy are often forced to rely on a more generic resource. This may be fairer, but it provides less choice and variety, and fundamentally makes the game's resources less interesting.
What's more, perhaps unfairness isn't always a bad thing? Sam Black has made an interesting argument that one of the key strengths of Magic's resource system is that a weaker player may have a chance to unseat a stronger, simply due to variance. A stronger player might also have more fun using their skills to prevail in a situation where the resource system disadvantaged them than simply winning a fair fight against a less experienced opponent.
Of course, just as often, variance will favor the stronger player, who'll then absolutely stomp the weaker, but at least in those situations the loser can throw up their hands and blame their bad draws.
There's also some excitement inherent to an unfair mechanic with high variance. Magic's land system introduces an extra component of risk. Keeping a greedy two-land hand, for instance, or discarding your only available land to a looting spell, in the hopes you'll draw a better card, and more lands to play it with.
These newer games may solve a common grumble, but personally, I find it a little less satisfying to know that I'm guaranteed two runes a turn in Riftbound. I find the feeling of converting interesting cards into less-thrilling ink a little dispiriting in Lorcana. In general, I love Magic's land system, warts and all.
At least, that's how I feel right now, away from the TCG table… Ask me when I've just been mana-screwed and, like everyone else, I'll tell you Magic's land system stinks.
If you enjoyed this article, consider joining the Wargamer Discord. Or check out our MTG release schedule guide to find out everything else coming out this year.