I think that there will be double-faced cards in Ixalan (as well as Rivals of Ixalan). It sounds crazy, I know, but there are actually several reasons why it would make a lot of sense.
Reason #1: The weird number of cards in each set in the Ixalan block.
The default size for large sets is 264. The default size for small sets is 184. Let’s take a look at the number of cards per set since Battle for Zendikar:
BFZ: 274 cards (264 + 10 extra basic lands)
OGW: 184 cards
SOI: 305 cards (DFCs)
EMN: 297 cards (DFCs)
KLD: 264 cards
AER: 184 cards
AKH: 264 cards
HOU: 199 cards (Originally said to be 184. Presumably 184 + 15 extra basic lands.)
As you can see, there are two reasons why sets have had more cards than default number in the past couple years. Either they have extra cycles of basic lands (BFZ and HOU) or they have DFCs (SOI and EMN).
Now let’s look at the number of cards in each set of the Ixalan block:
XLN: 279 cards
RIX: 196 cards
Neither of those are the default number. So we can probably assume that these sets either have extra basic lands or DFCs. Ixalan has 15 more cards than the default, so if the explanation is extra basic then it would have 3 extra basic land cycles (15 extra cards) for a total of 6 basic land cycles. The greatest number of basics in any set that I know of was 25 in BFZ (5 land cycles), and that was a set that took place on the most land-centric plane in existence, so Ixalan having more basics than BFZ would be strange to say the least.
Then you look at Rivals of Ixalan, which has 196 cards. That’s 12 more than the default for small sets (184). As you probably know already, 12 is not divisible by 5, so that means that even if we add in extra basic land cycles, the number will still be a bit off, meaning that we would have to either add 2 basic land cycles plus 2 actual nonland cards, or add 3 basic land cycles and remove 3 actual nonland cards (relative to the default, that is).
Ixalan’s extra 15 already had me skeptical of extra basics being the answer but Rivals of Ixalan’s extra 12 cards was the nail in the coffin for that theory. So what’s the other possibility? DFCs. Now, 15 DFCs is less than what SOI had, and 12 is less than what EMN had, but there’s no rule as to how many DFCs a given set is required to have. Origins only had 5, after all.
Plus, it makes a lot of sense for Ixalan to have less DFCs than Innistrad, since Innistrad is the birthplace of DFCs and DFCs are one of the defining traits of an Innistrad set. So while any other set can have DFCs, it doesn’t need to have as many as an Innistrad set, and it probably shouldn’t. Presumably, Ixalan would either always have 1 DFC per pack in an extra slot in the booster like the original Innistrad, or use them only at rare/mythic and just put them in the normal rare slot like Origins did with the flipwalkers. I doubt that it will sometimes had 2 per pack like SOI, though, given the lower numbers.
Reason #2: Color balance of rares and mythics.
I was making a list of the different cards on the leaked Ixalan rare sheet and I noticed something strange about the number of rares and mythics for each color (you can tell rares from mythics because the sheet has two copies of each rare and only one copy of each mythic). Take a look at the color balance:
White Mythics: 2
Blue Mythics: 2
Black Mythics: 2
Red Mythics: 2
Green Mythics: 1
Multicolored Mythics: 6
White Rares: 9
Blue Rares: 9
Black Rares: 8
Red Rares: 8
Green Rares: 8
Mutlicolored Rares: 2
Artifact Rares: 4
Land Rares: 5
As you can see, green is short a mythic compared to all the other colors. It’s certainly not unheard of for a color to be shorted a mythic (especially if that color has more multicolored mythics than other colors, though that really isn’t the case in Ixalan). It’s not all that out of ordinary that green got shorted a mythic. It just happens sometimes.
What really concerns me is that black, red, and green are all shorted a rare compared to white and blue. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the number of rares is virtually always consistent across all five colors. Otherwise, limited might be skewed in favor of certain colors and not others (especially in sealed). This means that black and red are each short a rare, while green is short a rare and a mythic.
What could solve this problem? DFCs. If there’s a green mythic DFC, a black rare DFC, a red rare DFC, and a green rare DFC, that would fix the color imbalance. After that, they could potentially have other rare and mythic DFCs.
Reason #3: DFCs are a popular, deciduous mechanic with lots of design space.
DFCs are very, very popular. They are polarizing, but in general quite well-liked. Like curses, protection, hybrid mana, and colored artifacts, DFCs are deciduous mechanic, meaning that they can show up in any set that needs them on as many or as few cards as needed. We already saw a smaller number of DFCs show up in Origins, and I think that a higher number than Origins but lower number than the Innistrad sets would be quite reasonable.
DFCs also have lots and lots of design space. Maro says that if not for logistical issues, DFCs would be in every set because they have so much design space. They’ve barely scratched the surface of what can be done with transform, and transform isn’t even the only thing they can do with DFCs. While transform is a 3 on the storm scale (meaning not deciduous, but a still very commonly block mechanic, like cycling or flashback), DFCs in general are a 2 (deciduous). That accounts for not only transform but also meld and any other new mechanic they can think of for DFCs. DFCs have a lot of space to explore and I think that Maro and the rest of design are eager to bring them back whenever possible.
Reason #4 – From what we’ve seen, Ixalan is a relatively simple set.
We can read most of the rares and mythics in the set, and this set definitely looks simpler than usual. Granted, it’s following 5+ consecutive blocks of “above average complexity” according to Maro, so maybe this is just “average” complexity by his definition, but it still looks pretty simplified. Rares are usually pretty complex, but many of these rares are pretty light on text and not all that confusing.
Ixalan only has four mechanics (not including DFCs): vehicles, raid, tough, and explore. Vehicles and raid are both returning, and from fairly recent sets no less (which makes them inherently simpler as many players already have experience with them). Vehicles are deciduous (meaning that they will appear often and are thus something that people should be very familiar with, like hybrid mana or curses), while raid is just an extremely simple mechanic. Tough is also a very simple mechanic (although potentially a very powerful one). Explore is actually a relatively complex mechanic, but it’s the only one in the set and even it isn’t that bad compared to things like embalm and aftermath. At least it spells out exactly what to do in the reminder text. It’s wordy, but straightforward.
What we’ve seen so far for Ixalan makes it look like a very simple set. Is it possible that this is just them trying to offset all the complex sets that came before it? Yes. But is it also possible that the simplicity is there to open up some space for some slightly more complex DFCs? Definitely.
Conclusion
There are quite a few reasons to believe that DFCs will be in Ixalan. When you think about it, it explains all three of the biggest mysteries about Ixalan: the weird number of cards (in both sets), the color imbalance among rares and mythics, and the unusually low complexity. And given the large design space and popularity of DFCs, as well as its history of causing increased set sizes, it actually seems really quite likely that Ixalan has DFCs.
I had already noticed the strange set sizes and brought up this possibility in the thread about the XLN leak in the main Rumor Mill, but the discussion just moved on and my observation was basically ignored. Anyway, this post does a much better job of explaining it and also adds additional reasons why this is not just possible but very likely. I agree with everything and totally support this theory.
There is one thing to correct though: you forgot explore when you say "Ixalan only has four mechanics (not including DFCs): vehicles, raid, tough, and raid." You did mention it right after though, but I feel like it should be added to that list nonetheless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I had already noticed the strange set sizes and brought up this possibility in the thread about the XLN leak in the main Rumor Mill, but the discussion just moved on and my observation was basically ignored. Anyway, this post does a much better job of explaining it and also adds additional reasons why this is not just possible but very likely. I agree with everything and totally support this theory.
There is one thing to correct though: you forgot explore when you say "Ixalan only has four mechanics (not including DFCs): vehicles, raid, tough, and raid." You did mention it right after though, but I feel like it should be added to that list nonetheless.
Vehicles are deciduous though, they'll continue to use them in sets where it makes sense, much like they do with things like equipment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Vehicles are deciduous though, they'll continue to use them in sets where it makes sense, much like they do with things like equipment.
Have they confirmed that?
If I recall correctly, Maro mentioned it after Aether Revolt on his Blog. They waited until public reaction to vehicles (mostly positive) to decide though.
Personally, I think it is nice, on a plane where vehicles makes sense (like ships on Ixalan for example) it adds additional flavor and gives WotC another tool to use, and on worlds where it doesn't make sense (such as for example Amonkhet), they'll simply skip using it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Considering we've seen all of the rares and mythics and none were dfcs it seems unlikely.
We've seen one sheet - which would normally contain all the rares and mythics. However, when DFCs are used they are printed on a different sheet where all the DFCs exist across the whole rarity spectrum. This is why sets with DFCs have more cards and also why DFCs are basically a 'bonus' rarity slot - because they are printed on a different sheet it's not possible to ensure that a rare DFC gets put in the rare slot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rose tint my world, keep me safe from my trouble and pain.
Amonkhet actually had vehicles but they got cut due to the set having too high of a complexity. They said way back in the design articles about vehicles that they're easier to balance than equipment, meaning why wouldn't you make them evergreen?
Amonkhet actually had vehicles but they got cut due to the set having too high of a complexity. They said way back in the design articles about vehicles that they're easier to balance than equipment, meaning why wouldn't you make them evergreen?
That got confirmed? Cool. I suspected as much due to the charioteers. It seemed like chariots were supposed to be Amonkhet's vehicles and they repurposed the art and concept to focus on the driver as a creature instead.
I imagine there is some cool stuff you can do with "You may exert ~ as it crews a vehicle" at least on one wacky uncommon.
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]
I posted this in another thread (and linked that thread to this thread) but I want to post it here too.
If all the rares and mythics in Ixalan are in this set, then Ixalan would:
1. Have a card named Sunbird's Invocation, but no sunbird (phoenix) creature.
2. Have a card named Dragonskull Summit , but no dragon creature.
3. Be the first large set in many years to feature none of the five iconic creature types (angel, sphinx, demon, dragon, hydra).
4. Be the first post-Origin large set to have no rare lands other than dual lands.
5. Have no black rares or mythics larger than a 4/4.
6. Have only one rare and no mythics with the tough mechanic.
7. Have a card named Tilomalli's Skinshifter, but no card for Tilomalli.
8. Have a card named Aegriah(?)'s Marauders, but no card for Aegriah(?).
9. Have a card named Kimalla's Sunwing, but no card for Kimalla (unless the RW planeswalker is named Kimalla).
Although many of these things could be made up for in the second set of the block, I don't think that they're going to put all of that off until then. Having this many things missing in one set seems like a terrible idea.
However, if there were DFCs, most or all of these problems could be fixed.
We could have:
1. A DFC phoenix (returns from your graveyard to the battlefield transformed?)
2. A DFC dragon
3. Possibly other iconics as DFCs
4. A rare (or mythic) DFC land (like Westvale Abbey)
5. A rare or mythic black DFC creature that is larger than a 4/4 on one or both sides
6. A rare or mythic DFC with the tough mechanic on one or both sides
7. A legendary DFC representing Tilomalli
8. A legendary DFC representing Aegriah(?)
9. A legendary DFC representing Kimalla (assuming that she isn't the RW planeswalkers
Not that all of those will necessarily appear, but it would be appalling for the set to be lacking all 9 of those things. If DFCs covered at least 5 or 6 of them, everything would make a lot more sense.
Amonkhet actually had vehicles but they got cut due to the set having too high of a complexity. They said way back in the design articles about vehicles that they're easier to balance than equipment, meaning why wouldn't you make them evergreen?
That got confirmed? Cool. I suspected as much due to the charioteers. It seemed like chariots were supposed to be Amonkhet's vehicles and they repurposed the art and concept to focus on the driver as a creature instead.
I imagine there is some cool stuff you can do with "You may exert ~ as it crews a vehicle" at least on one wacky uncommon.
I was right that was not all the rares on the sheet
The fatal mistake everybody made
There are more rares and mythics in the first set more than the second the amount of rares and mythics on that sheet is about the amount you would get in the second set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reason #1: The weird number of cards in each set in the Ixalan block.
The default size for large sets is 264. The default size for small sets is 184. Let’s take a look at the number of cards per set since Battle for Zendikar:
BFZ: 274 cards (264 + 10 extra basic lands)
OGW: 184 cards
SOI: 305 cards (DFCs)
EMN: 297 cards (DFCs)
KLD: 264 cards
AER: 184 cards
AKH: 264 cards
HOU: 199 cards (Originally said to be 184. Presumably 184 + 15 extra basic lands.)
As you can see, there are two reasons why sets have had more cards than default number in the past couple years. Either they have extra cycles of basic lands (BFZ and HOU) or they have DFCs (SOI and EMN).
Now let’s look at the number of cards in each set of the Ixalan block:
XLN: 279 cards
RIX: 196 cards
Neither of those are the default number. So we can probably assume that these sets either have extra basic lands or DFCs. Ixalan has 15 more cards than the default, so if the explanation is extra basic then it would have 3 extra basic land cycles (15 extra cards) for a total of 6 basic land cycles. The greatest number of basics in any set that I know of was 25 in BFZ (5 land cycles), and that was a set that took place on the most land-centric plane in existence, so Ixalan having more basics than BFZ would be strange to say the least.
Then you look at Rivals of Ixalan, which has 196 cards. That’s 12 more than the default for small sets (184). As you probably know already, 12 is not divisible by 5, so that means that even if we add in extra basic land cycles, the number will still be a bit off, meaning that we would have to either add 2 basic land cycles plus 2 actual nonland cards, or add 3 basic land cycles and remove 3 actual nonland cards (relative to the default, that is).
Ixalan’s extra 15 already had me skeptical of extra basics being the answer but Rivals of Ixalan’s extra 12 cards was the nail in the coffin for that theory. So what’s the other possibility? DFCs. Now, 15 DFCs is less than what SOI had, and 12 is less than what EMN had, but there’s no rule as to how many DFCs a given set is required to have. Origins only had 5, after all.
Plus, it makes a lot of sense for Ixalan to have less DFCs than Innistrad, since Innistrad is the birthplace of DFCs and DFCs are one of the defining traits of an Innistrad set. So while any other set can have DFCs, it doesn’t need to have as many as an Innistrad set, and it probably shouldn’t. Presumably, Ixalan would either always have 1 DFC per pack in an extra slot in the booster like the original Innistrad, or use them only at rare/mythic and just put them in the normal rare slot like Origins did with the flipwalkers. I doubt that it will sometimes had 2 per pack like SOI, though, given the lower numbers.
Reason #2: Color balance of rares and mythics.
I was making a list of the different cards on the leaked Ixalan rare sheet and I noticed something strange about the number of rares and mythics for each color (you can tell rares from mythics because the sheet has two copies of each rare and only one copy of each mythic). Take a look at the color balance:
White Mythics: 2
Blue Mythics: 2
Black Mythics: 2
Red Mythics: 2
Green Mythics: 1
Multicolored Mythics: 6
White Rares: 9
Blue Rares: 9
Black Rares: 8
Red Rares: 8
Green Rares: 8
Mutlicolored Rares: 2
Artifact Rares: 4
Land Rares: 5
As you can see, green is short a mythic compared to all the other colors. It’s certainly not unheard of for a color to be shorted a mythic (especially if that color has more multicolored mythics than other colors, though that really isn’t the case in Ixalan). It’s not all that out of ordinary that green got shorted a mythic. It just happens sometimes.
What really concerns me is that black, red, and green are all shorted a rare compared to white and blue. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that the number of rares is virtually always consistent across all five colors. Otherwise, limited might be skewed in favor of certain colors and not others (especially in sealed). This means that black and red are each short a rare, while green is short a rare and a mythic.
What could solve this problem? DFCs. If there’s a green mythic DFC, a black rare DFC, a red rare DFC, and a green rare DFC, that would fix the color imbalance. After that, they could potentially have other rare and mythic DFCs.
Reason #3: DFCs are a popular, deciduous mechanic with lots of design space.
DFCs are very, very popular. They are polarizing, but in general quite well-liked. Like curses, protection, hybrid mana, and colored artifacts, DFCs are deciduous mechanic, meaning that they can show up in any set that needs them on as many or as few cards as needed. We already saw a smaller number of DFCs show up in Origins, and I think that a higher number than Origins but lower number than the Innistrad sets would be quite reasonable.
DFCs also have lots and lots of design space. Maro says that if not for logistical issues, DFCs would be in every set because they have so much design space. They’ve barely scratched the surface of what can be done with transform, and transform isn’t even the only thing they can do with DFCs. While transform is a 3 on the storm scale (meaning not deciduous, but a still very commonly block mechanic, like cycling or flashback), DFCs in general are a 2 (deciduous). That accounts for not only transform but also meld and any other new mechanic they can think of for DFCs. DFCs have a lot of space to explore and I think that Maro and the rest of design are eager to bring them back whenever possible.
Reason #4 – From what we’ve seen, Ixalan is a relatively simple set.
We can read most of the rares and mythics in the set, and this set definitely looks simpler than usual. Granted, it’s following 5+ consecutive blocks of “above average complexity” according to Maro, so maybe this is just “average” complexity by his definition, but it still looks pretty simplified. Rares are usually pretty complex, but many of these rares are pretty light on text and not all that confusing.
Ixalan only has four mechanics (not including DFCs): vehicles, raid, tough, and explore. Vehicles and raid are both returning, and from fairly recent sets no less (which makes them inherently simpler as many players already have experience with them). Vehicles are deciduous (meaning that they will appear often and are thus something that people should be very familiar with, like hybrid mana or curses), while raid is just an extremely simple mechanic. Tough is also a very simple mechanic (although potentially a very powerful one). Explore is actually a relatively complex mechanic, but it’s the only one in the set and even it isn’t that bad compared to things like embalm and aftermath. At least it spells out exactly what to do in the reminder text. It’s wordy, but straightforward.
What we’ve seen so far for Ixalan makes it look like a very simple set. Is it possible that this is just them trying to offset all the complex sets that came before it? Yes. But is it also possible that the simplicity is there to open up some space for some slightly more complex DFCs? Definitely.
Conclusion
There are quite a few reasons to believe that DFCs will be in Ixalan. When you think about it, it explains all three of the biggest mysteries about Ixalan: the weird number of cards (in both sets), the color imbalance among rares and mythics, and the unusually low complexity. And given the large design space and popularity of DFCs, as well as its history of causing increased set sizes, it actually seems really quite likely that Ixalan has DFCs.
There is one thing to correct though: you forgot explore when you say "Ixalan only has four mechanics (not including DFCs): vehicles, raid, tough, and raid." You did mention it right after though, but I feel like it should be added to that list nonetheless.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Vehicles are deciduous though, they'll continue to use them in sets where it makes sense, much like they do with things like equipment.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
If I recall correctly, Maro mentioned it after Aether Revolt on his Blog. They waited until public reaction to vehicles (mostly positive) to decide though.
Personally, I think it is nice, on a plane where vehicles makes sense (like ships on Ixalan for example) it adds additional flavor and gives WotC another tool to use, and on worlds where it doesn't make sense (such as for example Amonkhet), they'll simply skip using it.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
While I agree we probably won't see DFCs, they would be on a separate print sheet from the other rares.
We've seen one sheet - which would normally contain all the rares and mythics. However, when DFCs are used they are printed on a different sheet where all the DFCs exist across the whole rarity spectrum. This is why sets with DFCs have more cards and also why DFCs are basically a 'bonus' rarity slot - because they are printed on a different sheet it's not possible to ensure that a rare DFC gets put in the rare slot.
hope we see some more legendary lands on DFC.
That got confirmed? Cool. I suspected as much due to the charioteers. It seemed like chariots were supposed to be Amonkhet's vehicles and they repurposed the art and concept to focus on the driver as a creature instead.
I imagine there is some cool stuff you can do with "You may exert ~ as it crews a vehicle" at least on one wacky uncommon.
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
If all the rares and mythics in Ixalan are in this set, then Ixalan would:
1. Have a card named Sunbird's Invocation, but no sunbird (phoenix) creature.
2. Have a card named Dragonskull Summit , but no dragon creature.
3. Be the first large set in many years to feature none of the five iconic creature types (angel, sphinx, demon, dragon, hydra).
4. Be the first post-Origin large set to have no rare lands other than dual lands.
5. Have no black rares or mythics larger than a 4/4.
6. Have only one rare and no mythics with the tough mechanic.
7. Have a card named Tilomalli's Skinshifter, but no card for Tilomalli.
8. Have a card named Aegriah(?)'s Marauders, but no card for Aegriah(?).
9. Have a card named Kimalla's Sunwing, but no card for Kimalla (unless the RW planeswalker is named Kimalla).
Although many of these things could be made up for in the second set of the block, I don't think that they're going to put all of that off until then. Having this many things missing in one set seems like a terrible idea.
However, if there were DFCs, most or all of these problems could be fixed.
We could have:
1. A DFC phoenix (returns from your graveyard to the battlefield transformed?)
2. A DFC dragon
3. Possibly other iconics as DFCs
4. A rare (or mythic) DFC land (like Westvale Abbey)
5. A rare or mythic black DFC creature that is larger than a 4/4 on one or both sides
6. A rare or mythic DFC with the tough mechanic on one or both sides
7. A legendary DFC representing Tilomalli
8. A legendary DFC representing Aegriah(?)
9. A legendary DFC representing Kimalla (assuming that she isn't the RW planeswalkers
Not that all of those will necessarily appear, but it would be appalling for the set to be lacking all 9 of those things. If DFCs covered at least 5 or 6 of them, everything would make a lot more sense.
Oh so vehicles are going to become evergreen?
think like time-shifted that needed to go on a separate sheet.
I thought of "treasure" cards with a different back that is exposed and does something when explored. probably too zany...
I was right that was not all the rares on the sheet
The fatal mistake everybody made
There are more rares and mythics in the first set more than the second the amount of rares and mythics on that sheet is about the amount you would get in the second set.