The Artifact Lands pretty much killed any chance of seeing lands with color/creature type/defining characteristics due to how overpowered they made things that keyed off of them. For instance, Bloodhall Ooze would be utterly ridiculous if you could drop a multicolored land to play it.
not if that land were a cipt land, then it would just be good, not overpowered, and if it were only allied colors each cipt land only gets you 1 color to trigger it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Infractions so far = 2
Complaint box: Why was the mtg as an mmo(rpg) thread closed? I was having fun talking about it, hrmph-
1) Counter types stay the same within one block environment
2) Wizards has said it would be a bad idea to use -1/-1 counters
3) Shadowmoor will not use -1/-1 counters
1+2=3
IIRC, Charlequin was strongly against that one too (though the other mods may have been more lenient).
Don't second-guess Wizards. You can guarantee that they'd have at least playtested this, which is more than any of us have done. Who knows what they found?
Having said that, I still don't think they'd work, but you can't rule it out (I didn't think the untap symbol would work either, but it did). The names "x Borderpost" sound like lands, but the art looks firmly artifact. I just don't see how the non-etherium ones can be coloured artifacts without being forced by the nature of the set - this is also a stretch.
Actually, I doubt they playtested this, at least for Alara. When Lorwyn came out, MaRo said they didn't even bother playtesting tribal lands, because they knew they'd be entirely silly. And the Shadowmoor counter thing is entirely different - that's a matter they decided based on the possibility (or not) of multiple counter types confusing players, along the same lines of their merfolk (originally banned because of a cognitive issue with summoning them to a battlefield) reversal. Colored lands isn't a matter of player confusion, it's a matter of power level. The closest analogy to saying "we won't print colored lands" is in this case the reserved list, full of cards which, if you'll believe me, they haven't reprinted, as they promised.
1) Counter types stay the same within one block environment
2) Wizards has said it would be a bad idea to use -1/-1 counters
3) Shadowmoor will not use -1/-1 counters
1+2=3
Your analogy doesn't hold. In TuskedChimp's logic, "If A then B" + "not B" = "not A." You just gave two different reasons for your conclusion. The first reason doesn't hold either though, since Lorwyn and Shadowmoor, although related, are different blocks. As for "block environment," I never saw any LOR+SHA limited events, and, afaik, For block constructed during shadowmoor, lorwyn cards were not allowed. EDIT: I was unaware of them being together in any block constructed events, but it looks like I was wrong.
Don't second-guess Wizards. You can guarantee that they'd have at least playtested this, which is more than any of us have done. Who knows what they found?
Having said that, I still don't think they'd work, but you can't rule it out (I didn't think the untap symbol would work either, but it did). The names "x Borderpost" sound like lands, but the art looks firmly artifact. I just don't see how the non-etherium ones can be coloured artifacts without being forced by the nature of the set - this is also a stretch.
I agree completely. Nothing can be completely ruled out yet. Except monocolored and uncolored. As for non-etherium colored artifacts, see:
I think the flavor of colored artifacts is simple - mana abundance. Alara was originally a plane rich with mana, and it is becoming so again. Each of the shards has sufficient amount mana of its own three colors. So, all five shards together = three times as much mana, of every color, than normal planes tend to have.
The multicoloredness probably represents this: the mana is so plentiful that it's used in extravagant ways. Making monocolored or colorless thing would mean you would have to limit it - multicoloredness is natural.
afaik, For block constructed during shadowmoor, lorwyn cards were not allowed.
Block PTQs were LOR+MOR+SHA, and then EVE when that came out. In fact, R&D ran an article that re-iterated why -1/-1 was a bad idea period just before shadowmoor came out.
I'm still not keen on colored lands, but -1/-1 was definitely sprung on us.
Block PTQs were LOR+MOR+SHA, and then EVE when that came out. In fact, R&D ran an article that re-iterated why -1/-1 was a bad idea period just before shadowmoor came out.
I'm still not keen on colored lands, but -1/-1 was definitely sprung on us.
As I said before, that's a confusion issue, not a power level issue. They're entirely different - R&D is very willing to confuse us, but less willing to completely unbalance a format.
1) Lands would have to be multicolored to be in ARB.
2) Wizards has said it would be a bad idea to print colored lands.
3) ARB will not have lands.
1+2=3
There's a thread in speculation called "what if Alara Reborn had colored lands?" or something of the sort, and I believe that is where the mods want this kind of stuff to go.
Your analogy doesn't hold. In TuskedChimp's logic, "If A then B" + "not B" = "not A." You just gave two different reasons for your conclusion. The first reason doesn't hold either though, since Lorwyn and Shadowmoor, although related, are different blocks.
I think the flawed part would be the 1+2=3 logic...cuz thats not technically it. It would really be, "Given A implies B; Therefore, not B implies not A" so the arguments are correct, but the process is wrong.
As for "block environment," I never saw any LOR+SHA limited events, and, afaik, For block constructed during shadowmoor, lorwyn cards were not allowed.
huh? I do believe 3 of the current decks, fae, 5-color, and kithkin, all made their initial post ALA designs in block. Perhaps thats not what u meant, but thats what it looks like.
The thing with -1/-1 counters was that they had a single chance to include them there.
Lorwyn did a lot with +1/+1 counters, so SHM could show the bad side.
Counters must remain the same during a block: well, it's technically a block, but SHM was also very distinct from Lorwyn. Also, -1/-1 counters were the opposite of +1/+1 counters, but worked the same way. They even interact with eachother. Unlike time counters, that would have been really bad. This worked fine.
Remember Time Spiral block? They had time counters, but also spore counters.
This would be the perfect time to print a colored land. Dryad Arbor is a colored land, and I'd love to see some amazing duals:
Dryad Field
Land - Forest Plains (R) (this card is green and white)
You can't play noncreature spells.
1/1
This would be the perfect time to print a colored land. Dryad Arbor is a colored land, and I'd love to see some amazing duals:
Dryad Field
Land Creature - Forest Plains Dryad (R) (this card is green and white)
You can't play noncreature spells.
1/1
Fixed templating. Also, that is awful. Not only can you not use it the turn it comes into play, but it also dies to every relevant creature removal ever printed alongside every land destruction card ever printed. Shock your land? Ew. You wouldn't even be able to play anything to protect it.
Plus when you're behind and need an answer, this is the worst card ever. I would absolutely hate memorizing this off the top of my brain pan scroll room zone. :\
EDH/Commander is a social format, right? So why don't people use their social skills to discuss what they like and don't like, instead of adopting a list with 60+ banned cards?
Fixed templating. Also, that is awful. Not only can you not use it the turn it comes into play, but it also dies to every relevant creature removal ever printed alongside every land destruction card ever printed. Shock your land? Ew. You wouldn't even be able to play anything to protect it.
Who would bother wasting a removal spell on it though? I sure wouldn't.
IIRC, Charlequin was strongly against that one too (though the other mods may have been more lenient).
I didn't have any problem with people discussing the matter in Speculation, which is where it belonged. In that forum we had an active thread on the matter for some time with discussion of both sides; I was wrong, other people were right, that was the end of the story. I'm happy to have that discussion about colored lands, too, but it needs to go in the right place.
The names "x Borderpost" sound like lands, but the art looks firmly artifact.
A land card generally represents a place that's relatively large -- I'd say probably a quarter-mile across at a bare minimum. The nature of lands is to represent whole places, locations large enough for individual human beings to be inside them.
Borderposts (in the sense the word is being used here, based on the pictures) aren't locales the same way; they're objects. You can see the whole thing, they're individual rocks that mark the spot where two shards join together. Historically speaking, that's much more fitting with how artifacts are concepted than lands.
I just don't see how the non-etherium ones can be coloured artifacts without being forced by the nature of the set - this is also a stretch.
As I mentioned upthread, non-creature-colored-artifacts don't have to be made of etherium, based on the actual examples we already have.
I am almost positive that these artifacts. They don't seem to be enchantments, they're definitely not creatures, and there isn't another permanent type with significant support to speculate on here. That said, the two options I've seen on here that seem the most likely for these artifacts are:
Mistvein Borderpost UB
Artifact T: Add U or B to your mana pool. ,T: Add R or W to your mana pool.
Mistvein Borderpost UB
Artifact T: Add R or W to your mana pool
Esper and Grixis share that they don't have green. Where those former planar boundaries exist, I would expect there to be a heavy concentration of UB. On each side then of the Borderpost, would be either white or red mana. I actually prefer the second example because it lets an allied color deck splash a fix for one or two colors it is not without allowing it access to those colors shared enemy (in this example, green). As a two CMC artifact it is playable early which is good, but requires two different colors of mana which is limiting.
As far as colored artifact flavor goes, I think for a five card cycle, it is limited enough not to be too jarring. That isn't to say we won't see other R or G artifacts (I expect to see the Scepter cycle completed. RRod of Ruin anyone?), the "Shard mechanics" should bleed a little I expect.
Finally, I expect these artifacts to have colored mana costs because, I really don't expect much use, if any, of the Transguild Courier color technology. Definitely NOT on a cycle. The "~ is X color(s)" wording should be saved for special cases when it serves a needed function or creates something that could not be done otherwise. Such as if they were going to take a permanent type that has never had color before and add color to it with special wording, like Transguild Courier, if would be for that one card, not a cycle.
It would also feel cheap to me if they said "ARB is solid gold! 100%!!" and then made cards with color-less mana costs and text that made them gold. I'm not seeing we won't see some kind of Trans-shard Courier or something like that, just that I don't expect WotC to "cheat" with this technology. To me that would be similar to announcing Legions as all creatures and priniting something like:
Shock Creature - R
Creature - Non-relevant type
Flash,
When ~ CIP, sacrifice it.
When ~ goes to graveyard, deal 3 to a target.
0/0
A littel extreme in the example, I know. I just hope the point comes across.
(I expect to see the Scepter cycle completed. RRod of Ruin anyone?), the "Shard mechanics" should bleed a little I expect.
Unfortunately, completing the esper object cycles (scepters, cups, capsules) would require monocolor cards, so we can rule those out unless they decide to complete them as 4-card cycles with the 4th being RG.
Of course, it's 100% gold. Weird that I messed that up. I was doing so well, too. So, scratch the other Scepters. My point about Esper bleed and other mechanic bleed still stands though.
Fixed templating. Also, that is awful. Not only can you not use it the turn it comes into play, but it also dies to every relevant creature removal ever printed alongside every land destruction card ever printed. Shock your land? Ew. You wouldn't even be able to play anything to protect it.
Plus when you're behind and need an answer, this is the worst card ever. I would absolutely hate memorizing this off the top of my brain pan scroll room zone. :\
Exactly!
That is why it would work. Everyone is claiming multi-coloured lands would be too good.
Well, here is an example of how to keep them form being too good. I am certain they can still be exploited, but the drawbacks are significant.
This is a strong counter argument against the people claiming that Wizards never would print coloured lands.
not if that land were a cipt land, then it would just be good, not overpowered, and if it were only allied colors each cipt land only gets you 1 color to trigger it.
Complaint box: Why was the mtg as an mmo(rpg) thread closed? I was having fun talking about it, hrmph-
Actually, I doubt they playtested this, at least for Alara. When Lorwyn came out, MaRo said they didn't even bother playtesting tribal lands, because they knew they'd be entirely silly. And the Shadowmoor counter thing is entirely different - that's a matter they decided based on the possibility (or not) of multiple counter types confusing players, along the same lines of their merfolk (originally banned because of a cognitive issue with summoning them to a battlefield) reversal. Colored lands isn't a matter of player confusion, it's a matter of power level. The closest analogy to saying "we won't print colored lands" is in this case the reserved list, full of cards which, if you'll believe me, they haven't reprinted, as they promised.
Your analogy doesn't hold. In TuskedChimp's logic, "If A then B" + "not B" = "not A." You just gave two different reasons for your conclusion. The first reason doesn't hold either though, since Lorwyn and Shadowmoor, although related, are different blocks. As for "block environment," I never saw any LOR+SHA limited events, and,
afaik, For block constructed during shadowmoor, lorwyn cards were not allowed.EDIT: I was unaware of them being together in any block constructed events, but it looks like I was wrong.I agree completely. Nothing can be completely ruled out yet. Except monocolored and uncolored. As for non-etherium colored artifacts, see:
CHECK OUT MY HAVE/WANTS!
Current Decks:
Block PTQs were LOR+MOR+SHA, and then EVE when that came out. In fact, R&D ran an article that re-iterated why -1/-1 was a bad idea period just before shadowmoor came out.
I'm still not keen on colored lands, but -1/-1 was definitely sprung on us.
As I said before, that's a confusion issue, not a power level issue. They're entirely different - R&D is very willing to confuse us, but less willing to completely unbalance a format.
I think the flawed part would be the 1+2=3 logic...cuz thats not technically it. It would really be, "Given A implies B; Therefore, not B implies not A" so the arguments are correct, but the process is wrong.
huh? I do believe 3 of the current decks, fae, 5-color, and kithkin, all made their initial post ALA designs in block. Perhaps thats not what u meant, but thats what it looks like.
Lorwyn did a lot with +1/+1 counters, so SHM could show the bad side.
Counters must remain the same during a block: well, it's technically a block, but SHM was also very distinct from Lorwyn. Also, -1/-1 counters were the opposite of +1/+1 counters, but worked the same way. They even interact with eachother. Unlike time counters, that would have been really bad. This worked fine.
Remember Time Spiral block? They had time counters, but also spore counters.
This would be the perfect time to print a colored land. Dryad Arbor is a colored land, and I'd love to see some amazing duals:
Dryad Field
Land - Forest Plains (R)
(this card is green and white)
You can't play noncreature spells.
1/1
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
Fixed templating. Also, that is awful. Not only can you not use it the turn it comes into play, but it also dies to every relevant creature removal ever printed alongside every land destruction card ever printed. Shock your land? Ew. You wouldn't even be able to play anything to protect it.
Plus when you're behind and need an answer, this is the worst card ever. I would absolutely hate memorizing this off the top of my brain pan scroll room zone. :\
Who would bother wasting a removal spell on it though? I sure wouldn't.
CHECK OUT MY HAVE/WANTS!
Current Decks:
If you take this line of discussion to the appropriate thread, I'll be happy to respond to every one of your points, but it is not on topic here.
I didn't have any problem with people discussing the matter in Speculation, which is where it belonged. In that forum we had an active thread on the matter for some time with discussion of both sides; I was wrong, other people were right, that was the end of the story. I'm happy to have that discussion about colored lands, too, but it needs to go in the right place.
A land card generally represents a place that's relatively large -- I'd say probably a quarter-mile across at a bare minimum. The nature of lands is to represent whole places, locations large enough for individual human beings to be inside them.
Borderposts (in the sense the word is being used here, based on the pictures) aren't locales the same way; they're objects. You can see the whole thing, they're individual rocks that mark the spot where two shards join together. Historically speaking, that's much more fitting with how artifacts are concepted than lands.
As I mentioned upthread, non-creature-colored-artifacts don't have to be made of etherium, based on the actual examples we already have.
Mistvein Borderpost UB
Artifact
T: Add U or B to your mana pool.
,T: Add R or W to your mana pool.
Mistvein Borderpost UB
Artifact
T: Add R or W to your mana pool
Esper and Grixis share that they don't have green. Where those former planar boundaries exist, I would expect there to be a heavy concentration of UB. On each side then of the Borderpost, would be either white or red mana. I actually prefer the second example because it lets an allied color deck splash a fix for one or two colors it is not without allowing it access to those colors shared enemy (in this example, green). As a two CMC artifact it is playable early which is good, but requires two different colors of mana which is limiting.
As far as colored artifact flavor goes, I think for a five card cycle, it is limited enough not to be too jarring. That isn't to say we won't see other R or G artifacts (I expect to see the Scepter cycle completed. RRod of Ruin anyone?), the "Shard mechanics" should bleed a little I expect.
Finally, I expect these artifacts to have colored mana costs because, I really don't expect much use, if any, of the Transguild Courier color technology. Definitely NOT on a cycle. The "~ is X color(s)" wording should be saved for special cases when it serves a needed function or creates something that could not be done otherwise. Such as if they were going to take a permanent type that has never had color before and add color to it with special wording, like Transguild Courier, if would be for that one card, not a cycle.
It would also feel cheap to me if they said "ARB is solid gold! 100%!!" and then made cards with color-less mana costs and text that made them gold. I'm not seeing we won't see some kind of Trans-shard Courier or something like that, just that I don't expect WotC to "cheat" with this technology. To me that would be similar to announcing Legions as all creatures and priniting something like:
Shock Creature - R
Creature - Non-relevant type
Flash,
When ~ CIP, sacrifice it.
When ~ goes to graveyard, deal 3 to a target.
0/0
A littel extreme in the example, I know. I just hope the point comes across.
Unfortunately, completing the esper object cycles (scepters, cups, capsules) would require monocolor cards, so we can rule those out unless they decide to complete them as 4-card cycles with the 4th being RG.
CHECK OUT MY HAVE/WANTS!
Current Decks:
Exactly!
That is why it would work. Everyone is claiming multi-coloured lands would be too good.
Well, here is an example of how to keep them form being too good. I am certain they can still be exploited, but the drawbacks are significant.
This is a strong counter argument against the people claiming that Wizards never would print coloured lands.
I like it:)
Check out Odds//Ends - My articles on Quirky Cards and Oddball Builds
Long-time PucaTrade member and sometime author. Send me cards!
Currently playing Knight of the Reliquary - Retreat to Coralhelm Combo
DCI Judge
Awesome Sig made by Magus of the Sheep @ Scuttlemutt Productions
Persuasive God of Deals of the [The Æsir]
наши пушки никогда шин