the deception of evolving wilds really does work. i can't believe how many people are commenting that it enters the battlefield untapped. "you can fetch on you opponents end step and then untaps on your turn". yes, of course every land untaps on your turn. what's the difference? the result is the same. you can't use it immediately when you play it on your turn.
While definitely not worth it, I think what they are trying to get at is that it lets you hide information. But like all the other arguments for evolving wilds, that doesn’t really work in commander where the colors of your deck are public info
One thing you didn't mention though and why I would play it over bad dual lands is the fact that it thins your deck. Anything that lessens the chance that you get a land draw for turn is good. Deck thinning is deck winning
I hadn't gotten to that part yet but I still don't agree, you say it's about to take a land out of your deck because then you won't get a land drop every turn that's a deck building issue, you should have enough card draw/ mana rocks. There's a reason most cedh decks run < 30 lands.
@@potatoesandgravyyy cedh decks run a low land count cause their whole deck costs 3 or less, just like i said in the video with modern decks. how does a casual deck cast their 8 mana commander with 30 lands?
@@nicholasvogel9783The main reason they don’t run escape tunnel is that if you buy precons you will have the other two in your collection but most players would have to go buy an escape tunnel (for every deck). Is escape tunnel better ? Sure, in 1 game out of a 100 it might be an important difference (maybe more in decks with synergy with it), but decks running Evolving Wilds, Terramorphic Expanse or Escape Tunnel are unlikely to be optimized decks.
My friend has a 3 colored snow deck where it is very important to have as many snow permanents as possible. In this deck I would argue that evolving wilds/terramorphic expanse are better fits than most duals since they can get snow basics (he does run the kaldheim snow duals of course)
I agree that it's run too much, but one important thing you're missing I think is how many strategies revolve around cards in your graveyard. Evolving wilds can be great for delve or collect evidence, and it counts as a permanent type, it even triggers descend.
@@Rabidconscience This is undoubtedly true. Though fabled passage is like $5 compared to $0.06 for evolving wilds, I just feel kind of sweaty for bringing it. New Capenna is strangely forgotten, I just forget it exists. Also, people see snarls as failing to meet the condition so are seen as bad, whereas tap lands are at least seen as reliable, it's a fallacy. I think availability pushes evolving wilds up on edhrec which only pushes it more ofc.
@@jeremy1392 financial feasibility isn’t what we are talking about though. If someone was saying “mana drain is better than counterspell” you wouldn’t disagree with them on the grounds that counterspell is cheaper in real life would you?
@@Rabidconscience But the video isn't titled "Fabled passage is better than evolving wilds," the subject of discussion is why people aren't running better alternatives to evolving wilds, where I think cost and power level are both one of many aspects relevant to discussion. Fundamentally I think the two biggest reasons it gets run are first that it's on edhrec so people throw it in, and second, similarly, that it's a staple so people just put it in every deck. It's in the precons, of course you should run it. Only after that do people consider any actual reasons it should be run.
@@jeremy1392 dude. If you want to argue about “the video’s title isn’t X” maybe you should actually read the videos title. The video is about how evolving wilds is overplayed. People are arguing that it’s worth a deck slot. The existence of strictly better cards is 100% relevant to that discussion. Yes, people put it in their deck because EDHrec says to. This video is pointing out the reasons why they SHOULDN’T put the card in their deck though.
7:26 if i remember right, the *lair* cycle is another cycle of lands that gives you the colors of mana. Darigaaz’s caldera for example. Theyre enters-untapped, tri-color, bounce lands.
I don’t like spending too much on dual lands, so I treat lands like evolving wilds or the new cap fetch lands as a way for me to search for the color I need on the cheap.
Funnily enough, Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expense are really good in white decks with lots of recursion. One of the best options in monowhite for ramp/card advantage is to return lands from the yard. Sun Titan, Serra Paragon, Sevine's Rec, Angel of Indemnity, Court Ardenvale, Redemption Choir, Jailbreak, etc... if you play any combination of those, being able to put a land in the yard can feel awesome.
Just came here to say the same, all variations of fetchlands(but please dont be cringe with offcolor real fetchlands) in conjunktion with bouncelands make it so i usually done even use manarocks in white decks outside of synergy(liquimetal torqe for more versitile temoval/artifact synergy).
Also, blue has Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time, which both want a bunch of cards in the graveyard. It's a minor synergy that I think is enough to make up for the color-fixing issues he points out, at least in a 2 color deck.
There is one deck where I still keep Evolving Wilds: my landfall deck and that's because it's a Tatyova deck that tries to very quickly find a fetch land and crucible of worlds to never miss a land drop. Of course I have far better fetches for this situation like Fabled Passage but I just want to have all of the possible fetches on that deck anyway.
I disagree with the notion that Evolving Wilds should be the first card you take out of a precon. It’s the SECOND card you should take out. The first is Temple of The False God.
I'm running it in a 5-color deck I'm building, because it was included in the Bob Ross Secret Lair which my brother bought for me as a birthday present, and I want to run ALL the lands from that in the same deck - no matter how bad it is. The deck also seems to be prioritizing Naya colors, so I'm much more likely to be fetching for a color I'll actually need every single turn anyway.
One type to run them in is top deck manipulation decks. Yes even mono green! I have a green deck that wants to play creatures off the top, since I have a lot of druids I can wait to crack when I hit non creatures on top.
I like to use use fetches in combination with additional land drop effects and play lands from yard effects. It makes for pretty robust engine if you are able to consistently make 2-5 land drops every turn without using any additional resources outside of the permanents in play. IN this case you don't care about how good is the fetch the only thing you care about is if you are able to use it the turn you play it.
Im poor and need fixing and landfall triggers. Otherwise I usually use Ash Barrens for fixing on a budget. Comes in untapped late game and early I just tutor for the right color basic.
Other than brainstorm and a few other niche uses (topdeck matters) I don't see how shuffling helps. This isn't Legacy we aren't running brainstorm as 7% of our deck.
There is the upside to Evolving Wilds and cards like it such as Terramorphic Expanse. They are thinning your deck allowing you to draw the cards you really want at a slightly higher rate.
Deck thinning isn’t so you’ll hit your land drops later, it’s thinning the land count so later your only drawing gas instead of top decking hella lands
I personally prefer evolving wilds/expanse over snarls. I like adding cards to my graveyard. The way I build my decks I have lots of basic lands synergies. I also enjoy running nonbasic hate because of how greedy mana bases are these days. This my style though everyone builds different.
i think its just all these small little things that add up that make it the overplayed card it is -precons -dirt cheap -useful in landfall -fetch alternative -recurrable -reprinted a million times -colorless land can go in any deck honestly tons of reasons why its played but its definitely inflated on edhrec mostly by precons. not a good land by any means but i see WHY its played
It's good enough when you're starting out on a deck, it ahould be shedded along the way, not necessarily when you add fetches, but when you add shocks, maybe.
Wait, so I have to play a tapped land to move a land from my deck into my graveyard? Wow! Sounds splashable! "What about this situation that was covered in the video but I was too busy trying to seem smart in the comments to have heard?" "What about in this niche strategy where EW is tangentially helpful to the couple hundred decks on EDHREC that use it?" Hit the nail on the head so hard, people are stumbling over themselves to prove this video's point. People hate contradicting information to the status quo, especially when it's about something they've spent money on. It's almost like the people in the comments are reacting to what they imagined this video said instead of the points actually presented...
my favorite comment ever i think. i actually hadn't thought about people pushing back becasue they don't want to admit they might have wasted their money, but that's absolutely true.
I use Evolving Wilds not just to get a basic land; It will give me a chance to search my deck for a land in case I'm a bit mana screwed, it will take out a card from my library so I have a better chance to draw a card I need, look though my library for information, and of course a free shuffle up for my deck during the game if I started out with a bad hand. But at the same time, there are better cards out there for the same thing.
plus, there's a question of the mana value of spells you are casting, "I got a spell I want to cast for 3 mana, but all I have is a basic and a dual land......I can't tap for 3." Dual lands are fantastic, but unless you have something that untaps lands, you will only be tapping for 1 of the 2 colors, unless it's a land that taps for 2 mana those are a different case.
It's really not. In a 3 color deck you have three times as many options for duals compared to a 2 color deck, so even running only duals that are both budget and not a simple tap land you would still have more better choices than you could fit in your deck. You'd never have to resort to an Evolving Wilds.
Here's the thing though..... strictly speaking, evolving Wilds is worse in a 2 colour deck than pretty much any dual land you could name. This of course is true, but it also does it's job well enough that it doesn't need to be replaced. If it gets you to enough sources for each colour that you can play your stuff, then functionally you're not gonna notice a difference between that & any other land that comes into play tapped. If it's a 3 colour deck then it gets the nod immediately (yes, even in a green deck). Why? Because a 3 colour deck has 1 early objective; to get at least 1 mana source of each colour. Evolving Wilds (& terramorphic) make that so much easier; therefore we play them. Any opener that contains Wilds + a dual land is a keeper (other land(s) obviously wanted, but the colour(s) they can produce is inconsequential). A hand that is missing a mana source for 1 colour is almost always a mulligan, but Wilds & expanse turn those hands into keepers. I can jam evolving Wilds in a 2 colour deck: strictly worse than a guildgate? Sure. But the difference is so small that I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. 3 (or more) colours? It's going in. Mono colour? I'm right there with you on that one.... why? Unless it's getting some revolt, descend, landfall, or some other trigger, in which case fair enough.
granted I do use a less budget-friendly mana base in my main few decks, but I do not have Evolving Wilds in any of my 3 color decks, and I do not miss it at all.
I haven’t finished watching video, so maybe it is mentioned but I don’t see any comments that it can be relevant to decks that use the new descend mechanic or require you to have cards in your graveyard.
There's a few synergies besides landfall that work really well with basic fetch lands. I like it with future sight effects (Elsha, melek, reality chip, etc), recursion (sun titan, muldrotha, life from the loam, etc), and mechanics that benefit from exiling cards in graveyard (lion sash, cards with escape, deathrite shaman)
when I drop an evolving wilds, a terramorphic exspanse, or a fabled passage, most of the time it isn't to mana fix, but to pull an extra land out of the library to try and prevent a dead draw later in the game
Generally I agree, but I think it's a good card if you're building a budget deck of 3 or more colors because it mana fixed and it's 35 cents. It makes a pretty notable difference in those types of decks because the mana fixing/filtering lands are usually more expensive. With that said, I think cards like Haunted Mire (tap duals) are just better to run and worth the extra 35 cents to put in your deck over terramorphic and evolving wilds
I only have Evolving Wilds/Terramorphic Expanse in Camen, Cruel Skymarcher. Sac synergy and returns them on attack if you don't have something better. Orzhov ramp, baby!
Yeah, reliquary tower is def overplayed for me. I took alot of the "no max hand size" pieces out of my Locust God deck awhile back. Having 27 cards in my hand late game is honestly a burden, not a blessingin most cases. Just makes my turns take longer and makes decisions harder. Ive learned to just whittle down my hand to the 7 best cards, and then maybe working in some recursion if it becomes an issue. The ability to discard is actially a hidden power really.
Couldn't agree more. Been slowly convincing a friend of mine who's a newer player to not factor in no max hand size as an important variable to most games. Somehow it gets brought up by him often as a concern. I tell him that no max hand size is only legitimately good in decks that actually care about hand size directly or decks that win by burying people in card advantage.
very thought provoking, ironically some of those thoughts were me realizing my Shelob deck would be better with evolving wilds because that increases the chances of Ishkanah going off.
I appreciate the emphasis on Boros, specifically because I was just talking to my friend two nights ago about his Boros land base. I also appreciate the price check on what the alternative options cost. I understand prices change, but it's useful for those cards you know won't see much of a shift.
I don’t like the blood moon argument. There’s only two ways a blood moon shits off evolving wilds: when they cast it you didn’t crack it in response. Maybe you weren’t aware of what it does, maybe you just didn’t care. Or evolving wilds was the only land in your hand and you needed to make a land drop and blood moon was already on the table. Otherwise, you crack it in response and go get a land. At the very worst, it’s now a land that taps for mana that didn’t tap for mana before. And in most cases, that’s better than all the lands you suggested to replace evolving wilds with. Because those already tapped for one of two colors, now they only produce red. Anyway, as someone who started playing magic in my buddies garage where evolving wilds and terramorphic expanse were the best fetches we had access to, I continue to put them in every single deck I build. I’ll likely never stop. It’s casual commander, it’s not that deep
For your first point. Crucible of worlds and the green one conduit of worlds? I use krosan verge evolving wilds Terra expanse in all my green decks because I recur them quite frequently and they fish out half the lands in my deck or what ever
I dont mind the off color fetches in a deck because, for example, if im playing a jeskai deck, bloodstained mire can still find me the steam vents i need to keep going. Just as an example.
Temple of the False God is a land that i really don't like. It's a land that's useless in your opening hand. It's no different than any other land if it's really late in the game and you want to draw anything but a land. It comes in a lot of precons and it's one of the first cards i swap out when i upgrade a precon.
I disagree with the two colour and green decks on few occasion. If you’re heavy in top deck manipulation the shuffle is nice. If you’re in green but not playing a lot of green I find it’s fine.
Hard disagree with this one. Evolving wilds does a lot of favours, it's 2 lands for one in your deck which actively increases the gas drawing chances, you may think it's only one card but every little helps. On ramp fixing colours, yes ramp fixes colors but there are times where you have a good hand that's lacking a colour but let's you make a good early play and evolving wilds fixes that scenario, without spending a turn ramping and then perhaps having extra unused mana. Especially in multicoloured decks. Basic land synergies also deal with this as do cards like yavimaya and urborg that let you use the evolving wilds for mana on a turn that you don't need to crack it or need the mana immediately. I don't think it's that evolving wilds should not be used. It's a brilliant card, but it should be, like any card, considered in how it's being used. Myriad landscape is dogwater though.
I find original fetchlands a waste of $15 for a land and same for shocks at $10; for EDH specifically. When there are the SNC fetches, terra/evolving, fabled passage, panoramas, promising vein (and the like), escape tunnel, and myriad landscape, what more could you ask for in a landfall or sacrifice strategy? In decks 3 colors or less, you can play just about all basics, especially 2 color and mono color, then either add tapped duals for mana fixing or utility/fetches for the landfall and sac decks. Its honestly funny in a bad way how many people just shove fetchlands, shocks, and og dual lands into an edh deck where it makes zero sense and is a huge waste of money.
Lol dude. Just say you play unplayable piles of jank. It would be easier. Some people want to be optimal. Come get that ass beat if you think it doesn't make a difference.
You can get away with 5 tapped lands in casual, see 1 or 2 a game and usually play them on turns that don't disrupt your curve. This can be one of those 5 in mono color. The deck thinning effect is small, but it's there. You don't drop a land each turn by running more lands, you do it by drawing more cards.
@@Shimatzu95I’ve never run a 5 color deck as they hold no interest for me, but I guess is makes more sense in a 5 color deck, though I’d generally prefer to run more than 50% untapped lands, basic or not. Are you talking conditional tap lands, or always etb tapped lands? I honestly feel like people might better spending the money they'd spend on fetch lands getting several cycles of the cheaper conditional untapped duals.
@@Jlizard27 i like playing with high pip count so fixing>speed for me. Generally i prefee to play 2 color decks as well but sometimes having access to all colors is nice.
I run a Semogal deck I run this and it's amazing as I want the deck count to get as low as possible so that I can draw into my cards in the mid game. Once I am set up
Unless you need landfall triggers path of ancestry is just better because it actually gets you all the colors you need whereas evolving wilds only gets one color
there's many other reasons beside landfall: 1. shuffles your library (brainstorm, sensei's top, sylvan library) 2. cards that care about permanents hitting the graveyard (e.g. cards with the mechanics revolt or descended) 3. cards that care about card types in graveyards (delirium and tarmogoyf-efffects) 4. delve exists? 5. cards that let you play lands from your graveyard... need lands in your graveyard And on TOP of that, yeah it triggers landfall twice and fixes your mana.
@@craigstuckey319 we're talking about budget, right? Like sure, I have multiples of all the rare fetchlands, myself but that was an expensive endevour. Primsatic Vista is actually more expensive now than most fetches. Fabled passage isn't horrendously expensive to get, but it's ONE card. We obviously need more. I guess Crop Rotation counts? Awesome, we are now at 2 cards for our budget deck. Like, what are these better options? Capenna-fetches? Cool I gained a life, tremendous, what else? Escape Tunnel, strictly better by like a hair. So I guess also useless? But we're at 6-8 fetchlands (depending on how many colors we play) that are all marginally better than Evolving Wilds/Expanse Besides the capenna fetches and escape Tunnel, there are no other fetchlands that you can simply crack the turn they enter the battlefield without paying extra mana. What are these supposedly tons of better options?
Would fetchlands make sense in two+ color blue decks that are running cards such as spectral deluge and scourge of fleets in an attempt to more easily access the two+ color "island" lands that increase the count for the aforementioned board wipes? What about decks that only run one or two landfall cards but isn't considered heavy landfall?
To me evolving wilds and terramorphic expanse reads "pay 1 mana draw a card. " I get to get a basic out of my deck which is a non-card. It allows me to draw into better cards since now theres one less card to draw. And in the late game im less likely to draw a basic when I need gas. Saying dont play evolving wilds is like advocating that fetches are subjectively bad. Obviously fetches are on a different power level, but if you could play a one mana spell that drew you a single card would you not?
You’re misunderstanding the concept of deck thinning. The idea is to remove “less useful” cards for the cards you want. Even in commander there’s a point where you have enough mana and extra mana sources are now standing in the way of you doing what you want your deck to do. A mathematician could explain it way better than I could but at some point you want to increase your chances of drawing a card that will win you the game or save your ass and rarely is that card a land. (In the late stages of the game) EDIT: think of it this way the best place for a land is on the battlefield or in your hand, after that it’s the graveyard. Lands in your deck don’t do you any good at all. Evolving wilds gets two of those lands out of your deck and onto the battlefield and into your graveyard.
Most overplayed cards are probably Cultivate or Sol Ring. Moreso cultivate. You cant just throw cultivate into any green deck willy nilly, especially if youre running a lower mana commander. What mana youre spending on cultivate can go towards more important things as you play on curve depending on the deck.
I haven't watched the video yet, but I agree, terramorphic expanse is a way cooler name edit: no! I can't believe you would say that about terramorphic expanse
i run evolving wilds and terramorphic expanse because getting mana screwed sucks, but paying 400 dollars per deck for an optimal landbase also sucks ass. if i pull nice lands from boosters they go into decks but i refuse to buy any land that costs more than a dollar unless it does something actually interesting like boseiju or something.
I think people see these as unlikely to meet the condition and go in the bad card category, rather than seeing them as tap lands which might untap in the right circumstances.
Oof, quite a few people not watching far enough into the middle or end of the video. Anyway, yeah, I put it and Terramorphic Expanse into my Lulu//Veteran Soldier vehicles. Also, I put in the Streets of New Capenna budget fetches as well. I won't put it in mono-color, two-color, or three-color decks under the usual circumstances, because I run other utility lands like Barren Moor, Polluted Mire, and Desert of the Glorified. The cycling lands are my top way of deck thinning, due to my play style. I do, however, run Myriad Landscape and Ash Barrens for deck-thinning, because even at 35 lands, I've ended up in situations where I would rather have had an answer instead of a land. As for four-color and five-color decks, I use Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse as budget alternatives, and I have them accompanied by Exotic Orchard and Fellwar Stone. Inscribed Tablet is also pretty nice.
Deck thinning is why! Valid points on 2 or 3 color land scenarios. Blood moon is a poor example as it also shuts down every alternative that you presented as options. It is overplayed but there are more reasons why to play it than you discuss IMO. Good to get everyone thinking about alternatives though. If you are not needing more than say 5 land to cast everything thinning is not horrible.
As time goes on, I started to take Evolving Wilds out of my decks as we've gotten better and better lands. Thing is though, I think it's played so much because for a long time, we didn't have all these alternative lands. Modern mtg however, we've got so many lands now that tap for two or more colors. Plus, more and more of those dual colors have land types, meaning the fetches can go get them. As time goes on, I think Wild will gets phased out and regulated to being a niche card as more and more people wake up. Mono color? Doesn't need it. Dual? Doesn't need it. Tri? 4 or 5 colors? Much, much better options.
I think they also get played a lot because people have like 100s of them. I’ve been on the soap box lately that Rec Sage isn’t that good anymore. And I heard well I play it because I like it and I have a bunch of them already.
I'd say, any deck of any color identity (with maybe the exception of monocolor or colorless) is still running a double digit number of basics, run it if you have it.
I think your point around 8:40 about Evolving Wilds and Blood Moon is poorly thought out. Evolving Wilds is BETTER than triomes in that situation because you can crack the evolving wilds in response to get a BASIC land, whereas the triome is hosed regardless.
@@edhdeckbuilding this would be true for any non basic though. I agree with your points on evolving wilds overall, but I just found that point to have an oversight. Plus evolving wilds does contribute to deck thinning and allows for shuffling of libraries which is important for those who top/sylvan library, etc.
@@rustyshackleford634 the shuffling point has been brought up alot and is incredibly fringe. are you leaving the evolving wilds in play until you want to shuffle your deck? that doesn't seem great either.
@@edhdeckbuilding That would really depend on my situation- there are times where I am doing well on mana and I have top out, so I actually might. I must reiterate that I am not wholly defending evolving wilds. But really the answer to your question is that, like many other cards/effects in EDH, you would run multiple cards with that effect for consistency. So if you want to be able to shuffle without delaying your mana you would just run multiple fetch lands (like Fabled Passage, which is better than evolving wilds).
OK guys I could use some help. I'm making a tivit seller of secrets deck he's 3 and esper mana and the deck heavily relies on him being out turn 5 or 4 and I'm on a budget. So! My question is can I run 2 or 3 evolving wilds effect lands? Does sound about right? I'm also already running just about every budget land that comes in untapped already.
There are a few caveats to your question; How many basics are you running? How many multi-lands are you running? Are 'fetchlands' better than mana rocks/Burnished Hart in a deck that wants lots of artifacts on the board? Late game compared to early game. Does your deck lean heavily into a particular color more than the rest? What is your budget? At the end of the day, you know what is best for your build. In a 3+ color deck, mana fixing is important.
Agreed. I mostly use them in a deck (which ironically is GW) which wants the extra shuffling and topdeck manipulation. But even in 3+ color decks, I just have so many better options.
Definitely agree. I do think getting sacrifice triggers for free is great, but the fact that the land has to enter tapped is just too big of a downside. I also really love the argument that you make about thinning lands out of the deck being kind of a bad thing is terrific, had never thought about it like that before. At the end of the day, cards like EW and TE really just aren’t comparable at all to the real fetches. They truly do pale in comparison.
I couldn't agree more, I think of Evolving Wilds and Tetramorphic Expanse as synergy cards only. I play Prismatic Vista and Fabled Passage to help fix and if thats more money than I want to put into the deck then I play none of that effect at all (I play mostly 2 and 3 color decks and have none that would like the synergy). I'd rather replace them with a basic land and add more card draw to my deck; I think there are a lot of cards that are 'sold' or championed as fixes to problems where the better fix is to run enough redundancy for the effect and enough card draw to reliably see them.
Great video! I also think evolving wilds is a bad card in many scenarios and is way overplayed. But 1 cool thing that it can also do is provide a way to shuffle your library, in decks using alot of cards which allow them to cast things off the top of the deck evolving wilds can provide a refresh. Is it worth running effectively a tapped land for I dont know.
4:00 wotc are not not gonna print 20$+ land in precon so they put some not so bad land in it. This game is all about money. So the 20$ + land are in packs to get more sell so wotc try to make profit, they don't care of players. In a 60 cards standard deck those land are maybe bad because standard is fast and different. Commander is slow so who care of tapped lands. Anyways, it's all about random draw, even if you have a mana crypt in your deck what the chance to get it in your starting hand ? Peoples are not stupid, they know the real best dual land are the alpha/beta/revised but who is enought crazy to put 500$+ on a single card ?
50% of the time you're better with a tapped dual, 20% a basic would be better, and 10% you're just forgetting another color fixing option (thriving lands and their gate equivalents, path of ancestry, etc.) Last 20% it does something usful for your deck e.g. landfall or sac triggers. That's all assuming you're playing budget and aren't just going to use triomes and proper fetchlands.
Unless you're playing a landfall theme thining out your deck as quickly as possible by getting as many lands into play as quickly as possible is really the smarter move. That way you're not potentially drawing into mana pockets and instead drawing into stuff you need to actually win the game
So, in a 2 color or 3 color deck, this is adequate color-fixing compared to an ETBT land. It's not as good as other budget options, but it's comparable. So, in a budget deck, it's worse as just color-fixing. The thing is... In most decks, there is some incidental synergy. For example, if you are playing blue, Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time will appreciate the extra card in your graveyard. And those are bordering on staples in blue budget decks. If you have any card in your deck that cares about descend, delve, revolt, landfall, etc..., and you are playing 2 or 3 colors... This is some minor incidental synergy that will probably come up more often than the times you wish it was an ETBT land that tapped for both.
I don't have evolving wilds or terramorphic expanse in any deck. Even in my lands decks I don't use it. A land hitting tapped needs a good reason for me to use it, and these don't do it.
