I think these lands will be great for Standard. Especially if Khans is a wedge block. In fact, these lands will be great for my current Junk deck. Not everyone plays Modern. Get over yourselves and see why they're doing what they're doing.
Hum? Wasn't the UR and BG lands a bit pricey like $4 ~ 6 before the announcement? They're fine.
My only beef is that the new frame should bring more excitement and for what was spoiled, most of them has been pretty boring. I hope WotC still have a couple more surprises under their sleeves. For now is a very skippable core set. Even M14 was more exciting than this one.
I read the article, and I don't see what you are talking about. Even used CtrlF to search for "fetch" and found nothing. Where did he say we wouldn't have them? Not saying that I expect them, because I don't, but you can allow us to dream.
There's no direct quote, but the fact that he talks about the Khans lands, then segues right into talking about the scrylands and how they were underestimated at first leads people to assume that Khans will have new dual lands, not reprints.
I can't tell you anything about the Khans of Tarkir cycle of dual lands yet, but I can tell you that they will make an impact on Standard. I know there was some skepticism last year when I revealed the scry lands for the first time, which many players believed wouldn't be strong enough to see Standard play. Seeing that there are decks playing off-color scry lands, and also that they have begun to show up in Modern, I think it is safe to say the lands were powerful enough.
i know that hoping for fetchland in a core set was too much, but dammit... painlands... wow... the cheapest lands ever. even the checklands are more expensive (and better) than painlands... well at least this set has urborg and the sliver land...
Checklands are not "better" than painlands. They are different. Do you think an aggro deck would rather have checks or pains? There's no question which is better in an aggro deck. In a control deck? Sure, checks are better. In a mid range, sure checks are probably better. But they are not always better, and if WOTC wanted to help aggro, it makes a lot more sense to print pains.
I take it you have never played with dual lands, fetch lands, shock lands or even the filter lands from shadowmoor. These lands are not great, they are worthless, hence them being mostly useless pennyrare fodder (at least at any reasonable store I've ever visited).
where were you when they made the rare cycles of scry lands or slow lands or even the storage lands of timespiral?
I hated and still hate the scrylands, cause clear uncommons as rares is just stupid, but I am willing to let that go, cause they wanted them to match the theme of the theros block. I wasn't playing during slow lands or storage lands. Tell me, were these lands rare, cause that's sort of a big point here?
If WotC wanted us to hate them more, they would have told us that an 'exciting' rare cycle of duals were coming and then given us karoo lands.
The painlands are just as bad as the karoo lands, when you put them next to shocks and fetches. If you think that is an unfair comparison, can you explain, why it is so unreasonable to think they would be reprinted in a core set?
M15 has Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, thats $15 a card and it aint even in a mythic slot.
I take it you don't actually know what that card does. While it can be useful in a Bx deck, I feel it's not exactly relevant when discussing the price of manafixing.
The pain lands are replacing the shocks which I am fine with. What replaced Innistrads duals? Scry lands cause they are equally as strong. Rolleyes
Right, so you are talking about standard. You do realize there a whole bunch of other formats as well and it's those formats that need the reprints. WotC created Modern to be their new "eternal" format and let people play with their older cards without the pricebarrier that legacy and vintage have. They have failed at this miserably as the manabase price situation has gotten way out of hand. WotC ensured players that the reason they are trying to destroy legacy and vintage was that they are trying to set up a format where they can freely reprint cards and, now that the players really need them to do that, they just essentially dropped their pants and showed us what three months without toilet paper looks like.
Theros was a bad block, it was weak overall and slowed the format down too quickly. Not everyone was prepared for such a change. Especially since there were many players playing aggro decks before Theros. Hopefully Khans will be better than Theros as M15 is better than M14.
And how does this have anything to do with painlands vs. shocklands? Painlands I guess encourage aggrodecks slightly more, but would't fetches do that equally well?
I hate how people are super unhappy about getting this cycle and weren't unhappy about losing their innistrad cycle for scry. I remember arguing till I got tired about how the temples weren't strong enough to be rare.
Great, I, on the hand, hate the idiotic scry land cycle, I think the innistrad cycle was next to useless and think it's idiotic that WotC is so blatantly ignoring the need for fetch+shock reprints. Manabase should not cost more than the rest of your deck, but maybe that's just me.
I take it you've never played with Painlands in Standard.
without lands that have two or more basic land types, fetches will not provide as much color fixing as painlands. for instance, with painlands, you can choose BB or GG or BG on turn two. with fetches and only basic lands, you can only get one of those choices. for three color decks, painlands are even better.
as for singles prices, you want your cards to maintain value, but also want them cheap? so which is it? painlands are great lands that are also cheap. isn't that good for new players? anyway, fetches will return eventually.
I take it you have never played with dual lands, fetch lands, shock lands or even the filter lands from shadowmoor. These lands are not great, they are worthless, hence them being mostly useless pennyrare fodder (at least at any reasonable store I've ever visited).
where were you when they made the rare cycles of scry lands or slow lands or even the storage lands of timespiral?
I hated and still hate the scrylands, cause clear uncommons as rares is just stupid, but I am willing to let that go, cause they wanted them to match the theme of the theros block. I wasn't playing during slow lands or storage lands. Tell me, were these lands rare, cause that's sort of a big point here?
If WotC wanted us to hate them more, they would have told us that an 'exciting' rare cycle of duals were coming and then given us karoo lands.
The painlands are just as bad as the karoo lands, when you put them next to shocks and fetches. If you think that is an unfair comparison, can you explain, why it is so unreasonable to think they would be reprinted in a core set?
M15 has Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, thats $15 a card and it aint even in a mythic slot.
I take it you don't actually know what that card does. While it can be useful in a Bx deck, I feel it's not exactly relevant when discussing the price of manafixing.
The pain lands are replacing the shocks which I am fine with. What replaced Innistrads duals? Scry lands cause they are equally as strong. Rolleyes
Right, so you are talking about standard. You do realize there a whole bunch of other formats as well and it's those formats that need the reprints. WotC created Modern to be their new "eternal" format and let people play with their older cards without the pricebarrier that legacy and vintage have. They have failed at this miserably as the manabase price situation has gotten way out of hand. WotC ensured players that the reason they are trying to destroy legacy and vintage was that they are trying to set up a format where they can freely reprint cards and, now that the players really need them to do that, they just essentially dropped their pants and showed us what three months without toilet paper looks like.
Theros was a bad block, it was weak overall and slowed the format down too quickly. Not everyone was prepared for such a change. Especially since there were many players playing aggro decks before Theros. Hopefully Khans will be better than Theros as M15 is better than M14.
And how does this have anything to do with painlands vs. shocklands? Painlands I guess encourage aggrodecks slightly more, but would't fetches do that equally well?
I hate how people are super unhappy about getting this cycle and weren't unhappy about losing their innistrad cycle for scry. I remember arguing till I got tired about how the temples weren't strong enough to be rare.
Great, I, on the hand, hate the idiotic scry land cycle, I think the innistrad cycle was next to useless and think it's idiotic that WotC is so blatantly ignoring the need for fetch+shock reprints. Manabase should not cost more than the rest of your deck, but maybe that's just me.
woah dude, eat a Snickers or something. Painlands aren't that bad. The are arguably better than fetches in an environment without landfall and Shocks as well.
And let me add that A: I don't even play Standard anymore, and B: I want reprints of fetches as much as anybody.
I love how people think fetches are the greatest thing ever without even thinking. They are just told how great they are, and accept that they must be the best ever lands in all situations, when in fact, they are pretty terrible when you don't have shocks/duals.
without lands that have two or more basic land types, fetches will not provide as much color fixing as painlands. for instance, with painlands, you can choose BB or GG or BG on turn two. with fetches and only basic lands, you can only get one of those choices. for three color decks, painlands are even better.
This sentiment confuses me. When painlands and fetchlands were simultaneously legal in standard, fetchlands were considered the better lands most of the time.
It's true that two painlands gives you access to three combinations of colors while two fetchlands only gives you access to one. However, this is a vast oversimplification of their relative strengths. To begin with, if you're stuck tapping multiple painlands for colored mana each turn, you're screwed against any deck that can put pressure on your life total. Painlands are abysmal in multiples. In contrast, fetchlands are fine in multiples. In other scenarios, fetchlands are identically good at fixing the turn they're cracked. Consider an opening of scryland, fetchland versus scryland, painland: both produce the same range of colors, since cracking a fetchland is the same as tapping a painland for colored mana. (Of course, you don't have to tap a painland for colored mana right away, and if you're at 1 or have no more basics, they still do something; these are clear advantages over fetchlands.) After that turn, you won't have any more flexibility if you cracked a fetch for a basic, but you also no longer have to pay life to have access to a colored source. If a painland is your only source for a particular color, you're in for a rough time unless you're playing against a deck that doesn't do damage to you.
Over all, they're fairly even as fixers, with fetches being somewhat better in aggressive metas and painlands better in controlling ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
without lands that have two or more basic land types, fetches will not provide as much color fixing as painlands. for instance, with painlands, you can choose BB or GG or BG on turn two. with fetches and only basic lands, you can only get one of those choices. for three color decks, painlands are even better.
This sentiment confuses me. When painlands and fetchlands were simultaneously legal in standard, fetchlands were considered the better lands most of the time.
It's true that two painlands gives you access to three combinations of colors while two fetchlands only gives you access to one. However, this is a vast oversimplification of their relative strengths. To begin with, if you're stuck tapping multiple painlands for colored mana each turn, you're screwed against any deck that can put pressure on your life total. Painlands are abysmal in multiples. In contrast, fetchlands are fine in multiples. In other scenarios, fetchlands are identically good at fixing the turn they're cracked. Consider an opening of scryland, fetchland versus scryland, painland: both produce the same range of colors, since cracking a fetchland is the same as tapping a painland for colored mana. (Of course, you don't have to tap a painland for colored mana right away, and if you're at 1 or have no more basics, they still do something; these are clear advantages over fetchlands.) After that turn, you won't have any more flexibility if you cracked a fetch for a basic, but you also no longer have to pay life to have access to a colored source. If a painland is your only source for a particular color, you're in for a rough time unless you're playing against a deck that doesn't do damage to you.
Over all, they're fairly even as fixers, with fetches being somewhat better in aggressive metas and painlands better in controlling ones.
I completely agree with you. That's why I said they are "arguably" better. Not strictly better. It truly depends on the meta, the cards available, and various other factors.
Consider an opening of scryland, fetchland versus scryland, painland: both produce the same range of colors, since cracking a fetchland is the same as tapping a painland for colored mana. (Of course, you don't have to tap a painland for colored mana right away, and if you're at 1 or have no more basics, they still do something; these are clear advantages over fetchlands.) After that turn, you won't have any more flexibility if you cracked a fetch for a basic, but you also no longer have to pay life to have access to a colored source. If a painland is your only source for a particular color, you're in for a rough time unless you're playing against a deck that doesn't do damage to you.
I don't know why you would even consider scrylands in a fast aggro deck. The fact is painlands allow access to more colors in the first 3 turns for 2 and 3 color aggro decks. You can have a hand like G, RR, and WW and still be able to play all three by turn 3. That's impossible with scrylands and fetches. In the long term, you will not lose more life because you will eventually have a few basics and the colorless on the painland is pain-free.
Consider an opening of scryland, fetchland versus scryland, painland: both produce the same range of colors, since cracking a fetchland is the same as tapping a painland for colored mana. (Of course, you don't have to tap a painland for colored mana right away, and if you're at 1 or have no more basics, they still do something; these are clear advantages over fetchlands.) After that turn, you won't have any more flexibility if you cracked a fetch for a basic, but you also no longer have to pay life to have access to a colored source. If a painland is your only source for a particular color, you're in for a rough time unless you're playing against a deck that doesn't do damage to you.
I don't know why you would even consider scrylands in a fast aggro deck. The fact is painlands allow access to more colors in the first 3 turns for 2 and 3 color aggro decks. You can have a hand like G, RR, and WW and still be able to play all three by turn 3. That's impossible with scrylands and fetches. In the long term, you will not lose more life because you will eventually have a few basics and the colorless on the painland is pain-free.
Sure, you can't do that with fetchlands. But your argument relies on a fairly contrived scenario. What if you never draw more than 3 lands in your 22-ish land deck? What if you draw 3 painlands? What if you draw only painlands for a particular color? Also, why on earth do you need G, RR, and WW by turn 3 in a deck with 8 16* duals (since you're not playing scrylands, and this is standard)? It's very easy to do the math and theorycraft, but more often than not, the game does not play that way.
Also, aggro decks throughout this past standard format have almost always played on-color scrylands alongside shocks.
*I am terrible at math. Still, with the twelve unknown duals in Khans block and the one on-color painland in Naya colors, this does not a compelling manabase make.
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
One important thing to remember is that WotC is by no means a monolithic entity. If I recall correctly, the "new players don't like paying life for mana" statement was issued by Mark Rosewater a while back, talking about the difficulties associated with creating new dual cycles. So it seems likely that, while that statement is something they take into mind when designing new duals, it appears development (who are almost certainly the ones that picked the painlands for these slots) is willing to be more flexible on the issue if it's needed to make the enviroment work.
I can't think of an alternative to reprinting painlands. They wanted to reprint a cycle of enemy-colored duals that come in untapped, as stated in the article. The options are:
Fetchlands: Would be too much for standard with deathrite shaman and they probably want to print the whole cycle at once.
Shocklands: Just reprinted.
Checklands: Don't work well with scrylands and presumably not with the ones from the next block either.
Filterlands: Don't support agressive decks well, which was one of the goals stated in the article.
Painlands: Haven't been reprinted since tenth, and don't need support like the checklands.
They're putting a healthy standard format ahead of reprints purely for the sake of increasing supply.
what they should have done is make the enemy colored quicklands...
Seems like an awfully, awfully strong signal for ally fetches (or something else of a high power level) in Khans.
Nope, I don't think so.
Maybe people on this site should learn not to get their hopes up and then rage at wizards for not getting what they wanted afterwards :/
Yeah, am I missing something? In what way does the reprinting of ENEMY painlands in M15 hint at the reprinting of ALLIED fetchlands in the fall set (which can only search up basic land types anyways)? Are people so desperate for their fetchlands reprints that they ignore all logic and reasoning?
Seems like an awfully, awfully strong signal for ally fetches (or something else of a high power level) in Khans.
Nope, I don't think so.
Maybe people on this site should learn not to get their hopes up and then rage at wizards for not getting what they wanted afterwards :/
Yeah, am I missing something? In what way does the reprinting of ENEMY painlands in M15 hint at the reprinting of ALLIED fetchlands in the fall set (which can only search up basic land types anyways)? Are people so desperate for their fetchlands reprints that they ignore all logic and reasoning?
Yes. There is no logic when it comes to fetchlands.
The logic (note: I am not saying I agree with this) is that:
1. Assuming that Wizards wants (roughly) equal cycles of lands in the block, and
2. since M14 had 0 duals, and Theros block had 10, then m15 having 5 means Tarkir has 5, thus
3. the enemy half is complete, leaving an allied half. What cycle is noticeably missing their allied half in modern?
I don't agree with any of the above, once examined, but when they announced the pain lands, that's the first argument I thought of that people were going to make.
The logic (note: I am not saying I agree with this) is that:
1. Assuming that Wizards wants (roughly) equal cycles of lands in the block, and
2. since M14 had 0 duals, and Theros block had 10, then m15 having 5 means Tarkir has 5, thus
3. the enemy half is complete, leaving an allied half. What cycle is noticeably missing their allied half in modern?
I don't agree with any of the above, once examined, but when they announced the pain lands, that's the first argument I thought of that people were going to make.
But that logic is based upon having equal land cycles in a block. But then you don't have equal land cycles in block. You only have allied lands in block.
- they're shaking things up again
- they still want balance for standard
He doesn't mention block plans
He didn't?
our hope moving forward with Standard is to make sure that players have the mana base to make their decks work, and part of that means that players in Block will also have adequate mana
- they're shaking things up again
- they still want balance for standard
He doesn't mention block plans
He didn't?
our hope moving forward with Standard is to make sure that players have the mana base to make their decks work, and part of that means that players in Block will also have adequate mana
Quite trying to make sense. Obviously each box of khans will contain a playset of onslaught fetches a 20 double sided cave lands/rigger tokens.
I don't understand why we haven't seen filter lands reprinted yet. They are good in every deck and work well with almost every other land.
They require hybrid to be part of the block. And the last two times hybrid was in a block was Shards (block after Filters) and Ravnica (they wanted Shocks).
They require hybrid to be part of the block. And the last two times hybrid was in a block was Shards (block after Filters) and Ravnica (they wanted Shocks).
Hybrid is evergreen. They could reprint the filters in any set they want to.
They require hybrid to be part of the block. And the last two times hybrid was in a block was Shards (block after Filters) and Ravnica (they wanted Shocks).
Hybrid is evergreen. They could reprint the filters in any set they want to.
They say it's evergreen, but when have we ever seen a random card or cycle in a nonmulticlor or hybrid set?
My only beef is that the new frame should bring more excitement and for what was spoiled, most of them has been pretty boring. I hope WotC still have a couple more surprises under their sleeves. For now is a very skippable core set. Even M14 was more exciting than this one.
Checklands are not "better" than painlands. They are different. Do you think an aggro deck would rather have checks or pains? There's no question which is better in an aggro deck. In a control deck? Sure, checks are better. In a mid range, sure checks are probably better. But they are not always better, and if WOTC wanted to help aggro, it makes a lot more sense to print pains.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
I take it you've never played with Painlands in Standard.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
as for singles prices, you want your cards to maintain value, but also want them cheap? so which is it? painlands are great lands that are also cheap. isn't that good for new players? anyway, fetches will return eventually.
........................
woah dude, eat a Snickers or something. Painlands aren't that bad. The are arguably better than fetches in an environment without landfall and Shocks as well.
And let me add that A: I don't even play Standard anymore, and B: I want reprints of fetches as much as anybody.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
I'm honestly amazed they reprinted the painlands in M15 given WoTC's belief that newer players
dislike paying life for anything.
This sentiment confuses me. When painlands and fetchlands were simultaneously legal in standard, fetchlands were considered the better lands most of the time.
It's true that two painlands gives you access to three combinations of colors while two fetchlands only gives you access to one. However, this is a vast oversimplification of their relative strengths. To begin with, if you're stuck tapping multiple painlands for colored mana each turn, you're screwed against any deck that can put pressure on your life total. Painlands are abysmal in multiples. In contrast, fetchlands are fine in multiples. In other scenarios, fetchlands are identically good at fixing the turn they're cracked. Consider an opening of scryland, fetchland versus scryland, painland: both produce the same range of colors, since cracking a fetchland is the same as tapping a painland for colored mana. (Of course, you don't have to tap a painland for colored mana right away, and if you're at 1 or have no more basics, they still do something; these are clear advantages over fetchlands.) After that turn, you won't have any more flexibility if you cracked a fetch for a basic, but you also no longer have to pay life to have access to a colored source. If a painland is your only source for a particular color, you're in for a rough time unless you're playing against a deck that doesn't do damage to you.
Over all, they're fairly even as fixers, with fetches being somewhat better in aggressive metas and painlands better in controlling ones.
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
I completely agree with you. That's why I said they are "arguably" better. Not strictly better. It truly depends on the meta, the cards available, and various other factors.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
I don't know why you would even consider scrylands in a fast aggro deck. The fact is painlands allow access to more colors in the first 3 turns for 2 and 3 color aggro decks. You can have a hand like G, RR, and WW and still be able to play all three by turn 3. That's impossible with scrylands and fetches. In the long term, you will not lose more life because you will eventually have a few basics and the colorless on the painland is pain-free.
........................
816* duals (since you're not playing scrylands, and this is standard)? It's very easy to do the math and theorycraft, but more often than not, the game does not play that way.Also, aggro decks throughout this past standard format have almost always played on-color scrylands alongside shocks.
*I am terrible at math. Still, with the twelve unknown duals in Khans block and the one on-color painland in Naya colors, this does not a compelling manabase make.
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Yes. There is no logic when it comes to fetchlands.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
1. Assuming that Wizards wants (roughly) equal cycles of lands in the block, and
2. since M14 had 0 duals, and Theros block had 10, then m15 having 5 means Tarkir has 5, thus
3. the enemy half is complete, leaving an allied half. What cycle is noticeably missing their allied half in modern?
I don't agree with any of the above, once examined, but when they announced the pain lands, that's the first argument I thought of that people were going to make.
But that logic is based upon having equal land cycles in a block. But then you don't have equal land cycles in block. You only have allied lands in block.
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
He didn't?
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
Quite trying to make sense. Obviously each box of khans will contain a playset of onslaught fetches a 20 double sided cave lands/rigger tokens.
They require hybrid to be part of the block. And the last two times hybrid was in a block was Shards (block after Filters) and Ravnica (they wanted Shocks).
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!
Hybrid is evergreen. They could reprint the filters in any set they want to.
They say it's evergreen, but when have we ever seen a random card or cycle in a nonmulticlor or hybrid set?
Check out http://www.mtgbrodeals.com/author/john-murphy/ for my EDH articles!