Since this is the brand new "feedback era", i wonder how long it will take to start printing full land cycle instead of only ally ones
I think they avoid printing full land cycles at rare because it takes up a lot slots and newer players don't find lands exciting. Having 10 lands also causes problems when designing sets since you have to fully support enemy and ally pairs where as most sets tend to use the land choices to inform players on supported pairings. Too many lands in rare slots also means less space for cool new rares or niche ones, if too many lands are opened in draft the set could feel a bit grindy because people are opening lands instead of their bomb rares.
The more cynical reason is just that they want to save them to sell Battlebond 2, but I like to think game balance is the real reason in this case.
The more cynical reason is just that they want to save them to sell Battlebond 2, but I like to think game balance is the real reason in this case.
They'd have other opportunities too, such as a third Conspiracy set, Commander (kind of iffy now that they've reduced it to a four-deck printing, but still), etc. Really, any supplemental set with a multiplayer theme would be a suitable place for it.
First look at the plane too and it seems very Ravnica like. Love the flavor of a Suit being aBR land.
Looks like Ravnica met Kaladesh in terms of civilization and technological advancements. Which is cool for a "Gladiator" style world, I guess. Kinda reminds me of Overwatch or something. I hope they do not go overboard with it though.
Since this is the brand new "feedback era", i wonder how long it will take to start printing full land cycle instead of only ally ones
I think they're avoiding keeping "everything" in one set. Separating chase rares would advertise multiple sets instead of cramping them all into a set and make it a "chase set".
Besides, WotC has been ensuring ally colors would have easier mana options than enemy colors, hence Underground River cycle compare to Caldera Lake cycle. While WotC has been a lot more lenient in recent years, they still prioritize giving ally color lands first before producing enemy colors ones,hence Seachrome Coast cycle before Spirebluff Canal cycle, and Fortified Village cycle first and maybe later we will get enemy color cycle.
First look at the plane too and it seems very Ravnica like. Love the flavor of a Suit being aBR land.
Looks like Ravnica met Kaladesh in terms of civilization and technological advancements. Which is cool for a "Gladiator" style world, I guess. Kinda reminds me of Overwatch or something. I hope they do not go overboard with it though.
When they announced battle bound and the flavor of the world they mentioned e-sports,so the Over Watch feel might be intentional.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Since this is the brand new "feedback era", i wonder how long it will take to start printing full land cycle instead of only ally ones
In standard this should be a non-issue with the new all Large Set model they're doing. Supplimental sets usually have a smaller cardpool and definitely can't support more lands than what is 'interesting' to add to the game as a whole.
So yeah, the counterpoint enemy lands are probably waiting for some form of EDH draft set or Battlebond 2 before they happen. Since they wouldn't fit in Standard sets.
I think they avoid printing full land cycles at rare because it takes up a lot slots and newer players don't find lands exciting. Having 10 lands also causes problems when designing sets since you have to fully support enemy and ally pairs where as most sets tend to use the land choices to inform players on supported pairings. Too many lands in rare slots also means less space for cool new rares or niche ones, if too many lands are opened in draft the set could feel a bit grindy because people are opening lands instead of their bomb rares.
The more cynical reason is just that they want to save them to sell Battlebond 2, but I like to think game balance is the real reason in this case.
Generally there's a draft archetype in all ten color pairs, but those can't be positioned to rely on rare fixing. It's pretty much a 'what Standard needs' to keep something like color parity.
And so they can print the other five lands in Battlebond 2.
For how many times they've said they don't prioritize ally colors, they sure do print a lot of new dual land cycles with allied colors first.
Regarding the 'no full cycle' thing: While I can see set design concerns being a factor as well, by this point it's clear they don't do full cycles anymore because they want to save some of the lands in order to sell them later. Although if you asked Wizards they'd probably tell you something along the lines of "spreading excitement over a larger amount of sets" or something.
For how many times they've said they don't prioritize ally colors, they sure do print a lot of new dual land cycles with allied colors first.
Regarding the 'no full cycle' thing: While I can see set design concerns being a factor as well, by this point it's clear they don't do full cycles anymore because they want to save some of the lands in order to sell them later. Although if you asked Wizards they'd probably tell you something along the lines of "spreading excitement about a larger amount of sets" or something.
Yeah no full cycle is to make sure they can sell BattleBond II.
But I still don't get the bias for allied colors I suppose the inbuilt synergy makes design easier. But really I don't think it kill them to have enemy pairs first a few times.
Besides, WotC has been ensuring ally colors would have easier mana options than enemy colors, hence Underground River cycle compare to Caldera Lake cycle. While WotC has been a lot more lenient in recent years, they still prioritize giving ally color lands first before producing enemy colors ones,hence Seachrome Coast cycle before Spirebluff Canal cycle, and Fortified Village cycle first and maybe later we will get enemy color cycle.
My response to this being pointed out is, "but why?" Wizards harp on about letting everyone "play the game your way" and Maro has even said there isn't a conscious bias against printing new enemy duals, and yet enemy pairs consistently get shafted at every level of design. I'm a fan of BW and wedge decks, and I just feel like Wizards wants me to enjoy Standard and EDH less than people who like ally colours and shards. Heck, even in Modern, where all the lands that matter (shocks, fetches, fasts) have full 10 card cycles, enemy colours still lack anything comparable to the DTK commands. I've tried to play BW in standard, the manabase was unworkable so I gave up on competing. To go back to DTK again, we're finally given a wedge set (KTK), only for the last set of the block to go straight back to allied pairs, giving them plenty of new toys and leaving enemy pairs behind again.
I'm sorry this post has turned into a rant but the lack of support for enemy pairs is my #1 problem with current Magic design, and that's saying something considering the state it's in.
254 card set with 85 new cards is not a lot of real estate to burn on 'cards you want but definitely can't rely on in Draft.' It is however more cards in both set size and new cards than either Conspiracy, which is the closest product we can compare this to. Unless we see a bunch of Shard colored mythics and new legendary creatures in ally this feels like a place where enemy color lands could be... but the flavor is just too easy on ally color.
Which based on these five cards, were really easy to flavor based entirely on the name + art.
My response to this being pointed out is, "but why?" Wizards harp on about letting everyone "play the game your way" and Maro has even said there isn't a conscious bias against printing new enemy duals, and yet enemy pairs consistently get shafted at every level of design. I'm a fan of BW and wedge decks, and I just feel like Wizards wants me to enjoy Standard and EDH less than people who like ally colours and shards. Heck, even in Modern, where all the lands that matter (shocks, fetches, fasts) have full 10 card cycles, enemy colours still lack anything comparable to the DTK commands. I've tried to play BW in standard, the manabase was unworkable so I gave up on competing. To go back to DTK again, we're finally given a wedge set (KTK), only for the last set of the block to go straight back to allied pairs, giving them plenty of new toys and leaving enemy pairs behind again.
I'm sorry this post has turned into a rant but the lack of support for enemy pairs is my #1 problem with current Magic design, and that's saying something considering the state it's in.
Can't speak for current policy, but in the old days WotC emphasize on how ally colors are magic schools that have more similarities in terms of principles,the more "traditional" schools if you will, compare to enemy color pairs which are the "heathens" or "untraditional", even "forbidden" schools of magic.
Using Ravnica guilds as an oversimplified example, Simic bends nature, Izzet impulsively dangerous, Boros are zealots, Orzhov exploits with laws, and Golgari blurs the cycle of life. They're not necessarily "evil", but their philosophies were built upon contradicting ideals, hence by old design they're less likely and more difficult compare to traditional magic users who combine mana base on similar aspects. Ally color pairs share a common enemy (such as WG versus Black), further their partnership than enemy pairs.
The wording on these makes them seem almost like Un-lands. Like a jokey sort of thing that isn't meant to be taken seriously. I mean, I know they're legit, but still.
The wording on these makes them seem almost like Un-lands. Like a jokey sort of thing that isn't meant to be taken seriously. I mean, I know they're legit, but still.
Mascots of this set are tiny homunculus and huge cyclops teamed together. I mean come on, we already know this set is supposed to be kinda silly.
Yeah I think about a 0% chance we see the enemy colored ones in this year's commander decks, or anything until like battlebond 2 in 4 years. Or maaaybe conspiracy 3, since it is a multiplayer format?
Can't wait to see the more wacky stuff battlebond has in store. As while these lands are very nice, I want to see those cards. Even if its just one card that really makes multiplayer even sillier than it is now and possibly breaks its.
The enemy land cycles they printed recently were lands the playerbase asked to be completed. Then,when they arrive, we get complaints that we didn't get enemy versions Of New cycles instead. Wizards just can't win when people ask for contradictory things. Yeah, they could have done both here, but since ally/enemy only get 2 constructed playable duals each rotation, there isn't much they can do with standard.
I'm always sad to see ally-only lands, but it's not unexpected. Still i expect the other half of the cycle to surface within a year in some auxillary product.
Since this is the brand new "feedback era", i wonder how long it will take to start printing full land cycle instead of only ally ones
I think they avoid printing full land cycles at rare because it takes up a lot slots and newer players don't find lands exciting. Having 10 lands also causes problems when designing sets since you have to fully support enemy and ally pairs where as most sets tend to use the land choices to inform players on supported pairings. Too many lands in rare slots also means less space for cool new rares or niche ones, if too many lands are opened in draft the set could feel a bit grindy because people are opening lands instead of their bomb rares.
The more cynical reason is just that they want to save them to sell Battlebond 2, but I like to think game balance is the real reason in this case.
Don't make the lands rare and make the decks have more colors and you got the problems fixed. Nothing also prevents wizards from printing cool cards in addition to less interesting utility cards. Exiting cards cost the same as not exiting cards.
Art wise definitely Sea of Clouds and Spire Garden. But they are my two favorite Ally Color Pairs so maybe bias.
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
I think they avoid printing full land cycles at rare because it takes up a lot slots and newer players don't find lands exciting. Having 10 lands also causes problems when designing sets since you have to fully support enemy and ally pairs where as most sets tend to use the land choices to inform players on supported pairings. Too many lands in rare slots also means less space for cool new rares or niche ones, if too many lands are opened in draft the set could feel a bit grindy because people are opening lands instead of their bomb rares.
The more cynical reason is just that they want to save them to sell Battlebond 2, but I like to think game balance is the real reason in this case.
They'd have other opportunities too, such as a third Conspiracy set, Commander (kind of iffy now that they've reduced it to a four-deck printing, but still), etc. Really, any supplemental set with a multiplayer theme would be a suitable place for it.
Your reasoning is completely sound, though
Looks like Ravnica met Kaladesh in terms of civilization and technological advancements. Which is cool for a "Gladiator" style world, I guess. Kinda reminds me of Overwatch or something. I hope they do not go overboard with it though.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
I think they're avoiding keeping "everything" in one set. Separating chase rares would advertise multiple sets instead of cramping them all into a set and make it a "chase set".
Besides, WotC has been ensuring ally colors would have easier mana options than enemy colors, hence Underground River cycle compare to Caldera Lake cycle. While WotC has been a lot more lenient in recent years, they still prioritize giving ally color lands first before producing enemy colors ones,hence Seachrome Coast cycle before Spirebluff Canal cycle, and Fortified Village cycle first and maybe later we will get enemy color cycle.
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
When they announced battle bound and the flavor of the world they mentioned e-sports,so the Over Watch feel might be intentional.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
So yeah, the counterpoint enemy lands are probably waiting for some form of EDH draft set or Battlebond 2 before they happen. Since they wouldn't fit in Standard sets.
Generally there's a draft archetype in all ten color pairs, but those can't be positioned to rely on rare fixing. It's pretty much a 'what Standard needs' to keep something like color parity.
And so they can print the other five lands in Battlebond 2.
Regarding the 'no full cycle' thing: While I can see set design concerns being a factor as well, by this point it's clear they don't do full cycles anymore because they want to save some of the lands in order to sell them later. Although if you asked Wizards they'd probably tell you something along the lines of "spreading excitement over a larger amount of sets" or something.
Yeah no full cycle is to make sure they can sell BattleBond II.
But I still don't get the bias for allied colors I suppose the inbuilt synergy makes design easier. But really I don't think it kill them to have enemy pairs first a few times.
My response to this being pointed out is, "but why?" Wizards harp on about letting everyone "play the game your way" and Maro has even said there isn't a conscious bias against printing new enemy duals, and yet enemy pairs consistently get shafted at every level of design. I'm a fan of BW and wedge decks, and I just feel like Wizards wants me to enjoy Standard and EDH less than people who like ally colours and shards. Heck, even in Modern, where all the lands that matter (shocks, fetches, fasts) have full 10 card cycles, enemy colours still lack anything comparable to the DTK commands. I've tried to play BW in standard, the manabase was unworkable so I gave up on competing. To go back to DTK again, we're finally given a wedge set (KTK), only for the last set of the block to go straight back to allied pairs, giving them plenty of new toys and leaving enemy pairs behind again.
I'm sorry this post has turned into a rant but the lack of support for enemy pairs is my #1 problem with current Magic design, and that's saying something considering the state it's in.
Which based on these five cards, were really easy to flavor based entirely on the name + art.
Can't speak for current policy, but in the old days WotC emphasize on how ally colors are magic schools that have more similarities in terms of principles,the more "traditional" schools if you will, compare to enemy color pairs which are the "heathens" or "untraditional", even "forbidden" schools of magic.
Using Ravnica guilds as an oversimplified example, Simic bends nature, Izzet impulsively dangerous, Boros are zealots, Orzhov exploits with laws, and Golgari blurs the cycle of life. They're not necessarily "evil", but their philosophies were built upon contradicting ideals, hence by old design they're less likely and more difficult compare to traditional magic users who combine mana base on similar aspects. Ally color pairs share a common enemy (such as WG versus Black), further their partnership than enemy pairs.
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
I am imagining NO, and that seems like a good design, having to play behave differently between games rather than just between formats.
Mascots of this set are tiny homunculus and huge cyclops teamed together. I mean come on, we already know this set is supposed to be kinda silly.
Yeah I think about a 0% chance we see the enemy colored ones in this year's commander decks, or anything until like battlebond 2 in 4 years. Or maaaybe conspiracy 3, since it is a multiplayer format?
affordable, wait nvm, they are rares. From a distance they looked like commons since I could barely see the gold.UR Mizzix of the Izmagnus ~~~ Build your own win-condition: Finite Spellslinging
UR Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer ~~~ We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
WUB Oloro, Ageless Ascetic ~~~ A Guide to dying slowly
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose ~~~ Marchesa's undying Marionettes
RGW Mayael the Anima ~~~ All Hail the Big Chungus
GWU Chulane, Teller of Tales ~~~ Permanents Only ETB Shenanigans
BGU Sidisi, Brood Tyrant ~~~ Sidisi's Restless Servants
WUBRG The Ur-Dragon ~~~ Dragons eat your face
Don't make the lands rare and make the decks have more colors and you got the problems fixed. Nothing also prevents wizards from printing cool cards in addition to less interesting utility cards. Exiting cards cost the same as not exiting cards.