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.
Lands are rare because WotC does not want that much good mana fixing in limited. Also, from a business standpoint, everyone who runs multicolored decks will want dual lands, so it makes sense to make those enabler cards slightly more difficult to acquire, to drive up booster sales.
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.
Make the decks have more colours? That causes some issues on it's own, I don't think wizards wants a set where the best options are 4/5 colour decks because it makes for s weird/complex draft environment and be a nightmare to make a design that felt cohesive, not saying it can't be done just that Wizards don't like 4+ colour environments. I would agree that they should print better fixing at lower rarities for supplemental sets like this, especially when it is purely for a multiplayer format and wont effect legacy/modern/standard etc.
Of course there is nothing stopping Wizards from printing exciting cards, but they only have so many slots in a set design and whilst I don't agree with New World Order it seems to be here to stay, so if you want exciting cards they tend to fall into the rare slot and most sets only have around 50 of those so you start running out of space for splashy cards pretty quick. Keeping in mind that "exciting" is a relative term as well; enfranchised players find fetchlands exciting and newer players see them as narrower Teramorphic Expanses and will take the much more "exciting" Charging Monstrosaur (as a random example). These new lands are incredibly exciting for someone who plays multiplayer, but that is the target audience for the set.
I do really dislike constructed utility cards at rare, but Damping Sphere seems to show a willingness to print them at uncommon.
Lands are rare because WotC does not want that much good mana fixing in limited. Also, from a business standpoint, everyone who runs multicolored decks will want dual lands, so it makes sense to make those enabler cards slightly more difficult to acquire, to drive up booster sales.
No, your second point is the only reaosn. Lands are rare because wizards wants to sell more packs. Has nothing to do with limited.
No, your second point is the only reaosn. Lands are rare because wizards wants to sell more packs. Has nothing to do with limited.
Slight reason for limited.
But there should be nobody thinking WotC doesnt know that lands in rare-slot sell packs, or are at the very least not a shabby crap card.
There are lands made for limited and lands pushed for constructed.
Magic is very hot on its lands and really good lands indeed sell an entire set of product, so thats a very relevant part of how a set turns out to be in value.
----
These lands here are just like that.
They are super terrible in normal 1v1 and have pretty much no drawback in any multiplayer.
Somehow, Wizards is able to print great lands when they need to hype a new format. But can't be bothered to for established ones.
Oh wait, feedback era right! Wizards, print enemy fetches in the next standard set. This was my feedback.
The current Design teams do not like Fetchlands. We will likely not see them printed in a standard legal set for a long, long time (it is also why the post-modern format is unlikely to start with Khans Block).
They're probably seeing how people react to them before completing the cycle.
From the looks of it, it seems people like it so they may complete it sooner than later, although it does take a good release or two to do that as the cards are already in the bag, so to speak.
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
They're probably seeing how people react to them before completing the cycle.
From the looks of it, it seems people like it so they may complete it sooner than later, although it does take a good release or two to do that as the cards are already in the bag, so to speak.
'buster
I imagine Battlebond 2 will come out next summer, or the summer after.
Seems like a strong foot forward to me for revealing these lands. If the rest of this set is this smartly designed, there is no doubt Battlebond 2 would happen.
Why does the thread title talk about 2HG/EDH? Why not just say multiplayer? Clearly there are 2-player EDH variants and plenty of casual rounds just play free-for-all rounds with their 60-card decks that are neither 2HG nor EDH, but clearly multiplayer.
don't include a rare land cycle UNLESS it can be completed within that block
not every set needs a rare land cycle to function, hard to believe i know.
You have to remember that the concept of "block" is dead. Sets are standalone. Now you could still have two adjacent sets cooperate on a cycle if it doesn't use set-specifc mechanics, so far I agree.
But what about supplemental sets? They are released in serial format i. e. best case you get the next supplemental set of a particular series one year later, more likely two years. They don't form a "block" with Standard releases.
If you consider only the sets within a series, then that might be entirely fine for Battlebond since I predict a high chance that Battlebond 2 will complete this cycle... in maybe two years.
But maybe you just want to express that land cycles should only be put into Standard releases (where a ten-card cycle can span multiple sets - even with the concept of "block" abandoned)? Well, this cycle wouldn't appear in a Standard release. Period. It's a multiplayer centric design, so it either appears in a supplemental set (supporting multiplayer) or not at all.
This set is the place for this cycle. Best chance is that we get Conspiracy 3 as next year's draftable supplemental release and the multiplayer focus there makes them decide that the cycle of multiplayer dual lands can be shared across these two series. But I don't see any merit to excluding this set from having a five-card cycle of multiplayer dual lands just because there is a waiting period to getting the rest of the cycle.
Who is served by that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
They're probably seeing how people react to them before completing the cycle.
From the looks of it, it seems people like it so they may complete it sooner than later, although it does take a good release or two to do that as the cards are already in the bag, so to speak.
'buster
I imagine Battlebond 2 will come out next summer, or the summer after.
Unless there's another supplementary multiplayer product like Planechase or Commander, where they could realistically put all ten should they choose to do so.
From the looks of it I think Battlebond will be a recurring product line, as I like the way it looks so far. So you're probably right in that sense.
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
I would like if they did some land cycles ( enemy and ally ) on a sheet that goes on the land slot of every booster. like, most of the time it is bad for sealed and draft to have fixing lands as your rare ( except when the set has good uncommuns). Let people have the chance to open 2 rares in a booster ( with one being a land) Let reprinted land cycles be dificult to open( or easier ). With the 1 set block we are now i can't see a better way to add both ally and enemy cycles in sets that will be in Standard for the same period.
While these are okay, they missed the boat by not giving these basic land types. These are by default below 3 cycles of lands due to the missing land types.
ABUR > Shock > Fastlands > These “meh” duals
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me! Legacy: RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R RGBelcherRG WSoldier StompyW BReanimatorB EDH: BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
While these are okay, they missed the boat by not giving these basic land types. These are by default below 3 cycles of lands due to the missing land types.
ABUR > Shock > Fastlands > These “meh” duals
There's no way Fastlands are better than these lands in multiplayer games. Mid to late game, Fastlands are just tap lands. Mid to late game, these lands will still come in untapped (unless you play in ultra competitive Commander environments (and even then, I think I'd take these lands over fast lands)).
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.
Agreed
But still wanting patiently for the enemy tango lands from BFZ
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.
Agreed
But still wanting patiently for the enemy tango lands from BFZ
Unless folks are commonly getting knocked out of the game before you make your fourth land drop, these new multilands are better than fastlands.
Except that sometimes an EDH game is only 2 people. For flexibility, fastlands are better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me! Legacy: RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R RGBelcherRG WSoldier StompyW BReanimatorB EDH: BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
Lands are rare because WotC does not want that much good mana fixing in limited. Also, from a business standpoint, everyone who runs multicolored decks will want dual lands, so it makes sense to make those enabler cards slightly more difficult to acquire, to drive up booster sales.
Make the decks have more colours? That causes some issues on it's own, I don't think wizards wants a set where the best options are 4/5 colour decks because it makes for s weird/complex draft environment and be a nightmare to make a design that felt cohesive, not saying it can't be done just that Wizards don't like 4+ colour environments. I would agree that they should print better fixing at lower rarities for supplemental sets like this, especially when it is purely for a multiplayer format and wont effect legacy/modern/standard etc.
Of course there is nothing stopping Wizards from printing exciting cards, but they only have so many slots in a set design and whilst I don't agree with New World Order it seems to be here to stay, so if you want exciting cards they tend to fall into the rare slot and most sets only have around 50 of those so you start running out of space for splashy cards pretty quick. Keeping in mind that "exciting" is a relative term as well; enfranchised players find fetchlands exciting and newer players see them as narrower Teramorphic Expanses and will take the much more "exciting" Charging Monstrosaur (as a random example). These new lands are incredibly exciting for someone who plays multiplayer, but that is the target audience for the set.
I do really dislike constructed utility cards at rare, but Damping Sphere seems to show a willingness to print them at uncommon.
don't include a rare land cycle UNLESS it can be completed within that block
not every set needs a rare land cycle to function, hard to believe i know.
Somehow, Wizards is able to print great lands when they need to hype a new format. But can't be bothered to for established ones.
Oh wait, feedback era right! Wizards, print enemy fetches in the next standard set. This was my feedback.
No, your second point is the only reaosn. Lands are rare because wizards wants to sell more packs. Has nothing to do with limited.
Slight reason for limited.
But there should be nobody thinking WotC doesnt know that lands in rare-slot sell packs, or are at the very least not a shabby crap card.
There are lands made for limited and lands pushed for constructed.
Magic is very hot on its lands and really good lands indeed sell an entire set of product, so thats a very relevant part of how a set turns out to be in value.
----
These lands here are just like that.
They are super terrible in normal 1v1 and have pretty much no drawback in any multiplayer.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
The current Design teams do not like Fetchlands. We will likely not see them printed in a standard legal set for a long, long time (it is also why the post-modern format is unlikely to start with Khans Block).
Blocks ended with Ixalan. We just have three large sets and 1 core sets coming out each year now.
From the looks of it, it seems people like it so they may complete it sooner than later, although it does take a good release or two to do that as the cards are already in the bag, so to speak.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
I imagine Battlebond 2 will come out next summer, or the summer after.
You have to remember that the concept of "block" is dead. Sets are standalone. Now you could still have two adjacent sets cooperate on a cycle if it doesn't use set-specifc mechanics, so far I agree.
But what about supplemental sets? They are released in serial format i. e. best case you get the next supplemental set of a particular series one year later, more likely two years. They don't form a "block" with Standard releases.
If you consider only the sets within a series, then that might be entirely fine for Battlebond since I predict a high chance that Battlebond 2 will complete this cycle... in maybe two years.
But maybe you just want to express that land cycles should only be put into Standard releases (where a ten-card cycle can span multiple sets - even with the concept of "block" abandoned)? Well, this cycle wouldn't appear in a Standard release. Period. It's a multiplayer centric design, so it either appears in a supplemental set (supporting multiplayer) or not at all.
This set is the place for this cycle. Best chance is that we get Conspiracy 3 as next year's draftable supplemental release and the multiplayer focus there makes them decide that the cycle of multiplayer dual lands can be shared across these two series. But I don't see any merit to excluding this set from having a five-card cycle of multiplayer dual lands just because there is a waiting period to getting the rest of the cycle.
Who is served by that?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Unless there's another supplementary multiplayer product like Planechase or Commander, where they could realistically put all ten should they choose to do so.
From the looks of it I think Battlebond will be a recurring product line, as I like the way it looks so far. So you're probably right in that sense.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
If we could get more stuff like that rather than Masters sets would be great.
ABUR > Shock > Fastlands > These “meh” duals
Currently Playing:
Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me!
Legacy:
RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R
RGBelcherRG
WSoldier StompyW
BReanimatorB
EDH:
BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB
BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
There's no way Fastlands are better than these lands in multiplayer games. Mid to late game, Fastlands are just tap lands. Mid to late game, these lands will still come in untapped (unless you play in ultra competitive Commander environments (and even then, I think I'd take these lands over fast lands)).
Agreed
But still wanting patiently for the enemy tango lands from BFZ
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
Except that sometimes an EDH game is only 2 people. For flexibility, fastlands are better.
Currently Playing:
Standard:
Nothing, the format Bores me!
Legacy:
RBurn (Made on the Cheap!)R
RGBelcherRG
WSoldier StompyW
BReanimatorB
EDH:
BUGRWSliver OverlordWRGUB
BGeth, Lord of the VaultB
Commander is multiplayer.
If there are only 2 players, then it is 1v1 Commander, which is a much maligned, degenerate format.
And if there are only two players, why are you even looking at these lands?