Bringing this thread back from the bottom of the graveyard because some interesting predictions were made here, some of which may now be coming real.
At this moment it's still in speculation zone, but "Modern Masters 4" is coming, following the 2-year release cycle of previous 3 MM sets, but this time it comes some with BIG changes:
Not even a Masters set (because those are on halt)
Leaked name Modern Horizons
Regular pack price or only $1 higher
Will likely introduce new cards to Modern format, bypassing Standard.
Cards new to Modern are speculated to be just some Legacy reprints, we'll know that soon.
So, it took 2 years longer than I've expected but here it comes! A Modern Core Set, so to say.
Can we speculate on the future of Modern sets like Horizons and more here?
Throwing some before-official-info specs:
Horizons will be a yearly Modern Core Set to introduce new cards to Modern bypassing Standard. First, second and maybe third of them will not contain entirely new cards but just reprints. First one, for safety, may only bring some oldies, next ones may bring some newer Legacy stuff like cards from Conspiracy or Commander products. I believe it will take at least 3 years until another radical change to Modern-oriented booster sets is made.
Yearly releases of Horizons-like Modern oriented sets based entirely on reprints may become unsustainable after a few years, as the Legacy card pool is not as deep as it may seem. But if other Magic supplemental products increase the pace of releasing powerful stuff into Legacy testing grounds first, then, combined with some fetchland reprints, the yearly Modern sets may have fuel to be ran for over a decade.
EDIT:
So I was too conservative with my predictions this time
All cards new to modern, some entirely new to the game
Set shapes to be awesome and I can easily expect there to be more of them
oh, and the set code is MH1, just to prepare for conveniently making MH2 and more
Business as usual. One thing that won't get discussed much even though it should:
Just as most changes, this one follows the tradition of making Standard more expensive to play. (the introduction of Masterpieces was the only exception). 4 large sets per year mean more packs have to be opened to get the needed cards. 2 small sets turning into big sets means around 320more packs have to be opened per year per player wanting to have playsets of the top cards. Even if the focus of the core sets changes, it won't be really any different than Magic2010-2015 core sets, because no matter what cards fill the most of the set, it's enough to have 1 chase mythic in it that players need a playset of. Then someone somewhere has to open those extra packs.
I was always a strong supporter of 20hp variant (despite being a control player for years of 30hp duelcommander) and I was really disappointed to see Wizards started with 30.
But not all is lost, with the real banlist they could bring a change to the starting life.
I think a different slightly higher starting life, like 24 or 25 should be even better than 20 and definitely better than 30. Here's why:
It should be obvious that having too high starting life total completely invalidates aggressive strategies. This leads to limited variety of deck archetypes. 30 is waaay too much as almost all cards were designed with 20 in mind.
However duelcommander moving to 20 has shown that it can be too low as dumb Zurgo Lava Spikes burn became tier1. It revealed a different problem in MTG design for 1v1 commander - considering the Philosophy of Fire cards are balanced for starting at 20 life and 7 cards and each card can be converted into some points of damage. In duel commander however players start with not 7 but 8++ cards thanks to the Commander. This makes super aggressive strategies inherently stronger here than in Legacy or Modern. That's why starting at 24 or 25 should balance it to a fair level, without giving too much of a boost to slow ramp or control strategies.
Extremes are never good. Going too high or too low can only lead to some kind of degenerate strategies dominating. The middle ground should have the greatest variety of viable strategies. I see absolutely ZERO advantages to having 30 rather than 25 starting life.
We should come together and let Wizards know this, so they can announce the best format imaginable.
I really like calling cards with C costs Diamond cards. And I think every player who has seen the symbol will understand what I mean when I'll say "I'll splash a few Diamond cards".
However when talking about C mana, it should be properely called "Colorless mana" (or just "C") and nothing else makes sense here.
So "I need to add more colorless mana sources to my deck if I want to splash a few more diamond cards" is how I'd say it.
Pilgrim's Eye becomes an uncommon - could it really be too strong for a common in limited?
And the land seems qute good, 1-2 of in UX control decks in standard, but the cost is probably too high for Modern. You need this and 6 other mana sources, that's quite a lot. The effect is very strong though, could some kind of blue tron play 1?
Woops. In a quite unexpected turn of events the leak is real. After our source OblivionedOne saying "I didn't spoil this card..." and me finding out a 'different' JHawk94 posted it originally (which looked just like an impersonator, but wasn't). The card itself while unimpressive has always appeared realistic, nothing in it's design hinted at it being fake, it's a simple and elegant design after all.
Oh, and the card is actually better than spoiled - the emblem says "Whenever a player draws a card, you lose 2 life." so it kills at least twice as fast, possibly even instantly if you cast a draw spell after resolving his ultimate!
Maro said nothing about the 20 expeditions in OGW, his quote about 2 cycles of 10 referred to the 20 other BFZ ones after the first 5 were revealed.
Anyway, what to be expected is 2 possible likely scenarios: there are either 5 enemy-colored manlands OR 5 enemy-colored latelands (zenduals/tangos). It's extremely unlikely they will print both in one small set. And that has big implications on what the 20 OGW expeditions will be made of - because either of them are almost certain to also receive the special frame treatment.
So scenario 1: 5 enemy-colored manlands in OGW -> most lilely the full set of 10 dual manlands in the expeditions set. Then the other 10 can likely be another full set of lands, like filterlands or checklands. Such an elegant solution.
Scenario 2: 5 enemy-colored latelands complete the cycle in OGW -> almost certainly also receiving the fullart version. That leaves 15 more slots. 5 WWK manlands +10 filterlands then seem likely.
Scenario 3: No new set of rare lands in OGW worthy of getting the fullart treatment. Unlikely. But then the expeditions could be 2 sets of 10 duals or 1 set of 10 and a mix of various lands (like Wasteland and the other suggestions from this thread) as the other 10. Still a mix of various unrelated lands doesn't seem likely for me, it's somewhat inelegant.
Two different cycles of dual lands - that's something we had in the original Zendikar, then Worldwake. They may well do the enemy-manlands in the next set, but the tangoland cycle also "needs" to be completed somewhere...
Perhaps having 20 expeditions in the next set is a hint - it could be a set of all 10 manlands there plus a different set of 10 lands, but are there even any more lands deserving this treatment? Filterlands? /meh
I'd like a rule that allows a free mulligan if both players mulligan their first hand, provided that you both agree the other player can draw 7 cards. If no agreement can be met, then you both draw 6.
From my understanding you can do this already. The technicalities of it are you both forfeit (creating a draw) the game which you both mulliganed. Though I would confirm with someone who knows the rules better than me first.
Yes, you can do that, exactly the way you described.
But if your opponent proposes such a move you should probably decline. As was explained, this greatly benefits certain decks, meaning your opponent is probably playing such a deck. (Or maybe I'm just a bad person, thinking like that )
If your opponent proposes such a move you should first consider how much this helps your deck. I auto-agree if I'm playing a vulnerable deck that gets much weaker with each lost card, or whenever I know I'm the better player in the match (reducing the luck element is an advantage for me).
Anyway, I'd love a rules expert to confirm if this is legit to do in competitive tournaments (I see FNM/Prerelease players do that all the time).
{tap} - add {w} to your mana pool
{ww} {tap} - reveal the top four cards of your library. you may put a basic land revealed this way into your hand. shuffle the rest into your library.
Too good?
No drawback at all? Grossly overpowered. Would be too good even if it came into play tapped. Repeatable card advantage and a shuffle effect on a land with a low cost would be too good even for Legacy.
___ ___ ___ ___
Is this thread about predicting the rare multicolor land cycle only? Because I got something completely different to discuss - a possible common or uncommon land cycle for BFZ:
If the "colorless mana matters" theme is a real thing and we'll even get a colorless basic land then how about a cycle of 5 lands like this:
Eldrazified Field
Land (C) T: Add 1 or W to your mana pool.
Would it be ok with no drawback at all, just as is?
Almost identical!
At this moment it's still in speculation zone, but "Modern Masters 4" is coming, following the 2-year release cycle of previous 3 MM sets, but this time it comes some with BIG changes:
Cards new to Modern are speculated to be just some Legacy reprints, we'll know that soon.
So, it took 2 years longer than I've expected but here it comes! A Modern Core Set, so to say.
Can we speculate on the future of Modern sets like Horizons and more here?
Throwing some before-official-info specs:
Horizons will be a yearly Modern Core Set to introduce new cards to Modern bypassing Standard. First, second and maybe third of them will not contain entirely new cards but just reprints. First one, for safety, may only bring some oldies, next ones may bring some newer Legacy stuff like cards from Conspiracy or Commander products. I believe it will take at least 3 years until another radical change to Modern-oriented booster sets is made.
Yearly releases of Horizons-like Modern oriented sets based entirely on reprints may become unsustainable after a few years, as the Legacy card pool is not as deep as it may seem. But if other Magic supplemental products increase the pace of releasing powerful stuff into Legacy testing grounds first, then, combined with some fetchland reprints, the yearly Modern sets may have fuel to be ran for over a decade.
EDIT:
So I was too conservative with my predictions this time
All cards new to modern, some entirely new to the game
Set shapes to be awesome and I can easily expect there to be more of them
oh, and the set code is MH1, just to prepare for conveniently making MH2 and more
Just as most changes, this one follows the tradition of making Standard more expensive to play. (the introduction of Masterpieces was the only exception). 4 large sets per year mean more packs have to be opened to get the needed cards. 2 small sets turning into big sets means around 320 more packs have to be opened per year per player wanting to have playsets of the top cards. Even if the focus of the core sets changes, it won't be really any different than Magic2010-2015 core sets, because no matter what cards fill the most of the set, it's enough to have 1 chase mythic in it that players need a playset of. Then someone somewhere has to open those extra packs.
But not all is lost, with the real banlist they could bring a change to the starting life.
I think a different slightly higher starting life, like 24 or 25 should be even better than 20 and definitely better than 30. Here's why:
It should be obvious that having too high starting life total completely invalidates aggressive strategies. This leads to limited variety of deck archetypes. 30 is waaay too much as almost all cards were designed with 20 in mind.
However duelcommander moving to 20 has shown that it can be too low as dumb Zurgo Lava Spikes burn became tier1. It revealed a different problem in MTG design for 1v1 commander - considering the Philosophy of Fire cards are balanced for starting at 20 life and 7 cards and each card can be converted into some points of damage. In duel commander however players start with not 7 but 8++ cards thanks to the Commander. This makes super aggressive strategies inherently stronger here than in Legacy or Modern. That's why starting at 24 or 25 should balance it to a fair level, without giving too much of a boost to slow ramp or control strategies.
Extremes are never good. Going too high or too low can only lead to some kind of degenerate strategies dominating. The middle ground should have the greatest variety of viable strategies. I see absolutely ZERO advantages to having 30 rather than 25 starting life.
We should come together and let Wizards know this, so they can announce the best format imaginable.
However when talking about C mana, it should be properely called "Colorless mana" (or just "C") and nothing else makes sense here.
So "I need to add more colorless mana sources to my deck if I want to splash a few more diamond cards" is how I'd say it.
And the land seems qute good, 1-2 of in UX control decks in standard, but the cost is probably too high for Modern. You need this and 6 other mana sources, that's quite a lot. The effect is very strong though, could some kind of blue tron play 1?
Woops. In a quite unexpected turn of events the leak is real. After our source OblivionedOne saying "I didn't spoil this card..." and me finding out a 'different' JHawk94 posted it originally (which looked just like an impersonator, but wasn't). The card itself while unimpressive has always appeared realistic, nothing in it's design hinted at it being fake, it's a simple and elegant design after all.
Oh, and the card is actually better than spoiled - the emblem says "Whenever a player draws a card, you lose 2 life." so it kills at least twice as fast, possibly even instantly if you cast a draw spell after resolving his ultimate!
Anyway, what to be expected is 2 possible likely scenarios: there are either 5 enemy-colored manlands OR 5 enemy-colored latelands (zenduals/tangos). It's extremely unlikely they will print both in one small set. And that has big implications on what the 20 OGW expeditions will be made of - because either of them are almost certain to also receive the special frame treatment.
So scenario 1: 5 enemy-colored manlands in OGW -> most lilely the full set of 10 dual manlands in the expeditions set. Then the other 10 can likely be another full set of lands, like filterlands or checklands. Such an elegant solution.
Scenario 2: 5 enemy-colored latelands complete the cycle in OGW -> almost certainly also receiving the fullart version. That leaves 15 more slots. 5 WWK manlands +10 filterlands then seem likely.
Scenario 3: No new set of rare lands in OGW worthy of getting the fullart treatment. Unlikely. But then the expeditions could be 2 sets of 10 duals or 1 set of 10 and a mix of various lands (like Wasteland and the other suggestions from this thread) as the other 10. Still a mix of various unrelated lands doesn't seem likely for me, it's somewhat inelegant.
This is FAKE.
A different person impersonated JHawk94 when posting this Ob Nixilis.
Source: ALL posts by the real JHawk94:
https://disqus.com/by/disqus_4Zc0jX2fnW/
Perhaps having 20 expeditions in the next set is a hint - it could be a set of all 10 manlands there plus a different set of 10 lands, but are there even any more lands deserving this treatment? Filterlands? /meh
If your opponent proposes such a move you should first consider how much this helps your deck. I auto-agree if I'm playing a vulnerable deck that gets much weaker with each lost card, or whenever I know I'm the better player in the match (reducing the luck element is an advantage for me).
Anyway, I'd love a rules expert to confirm if this is legit to do in competitive tournaments (I see FNM/Prerelease players do that all the time).
Since then they have said that they have come up with a rules solution that would make it possible.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8V4nYRxG1G8&t=49m
No drawback at all? Grossly overpowered. Would be too good even if it came into play tapped. Repeatable card advantage and a shuffle effect on a land with a low cost would be too good even for Legacy.
___ ___ ___ ___
Is this thread about predicting the rare multicolor land cycle only? Because I got something completely different to discuss - a possible common or uncommon land cycle for BFZ:
If the "colorless mana matters" theme is a real thing and we'll even get a colorless basic land then how about a cycle of 5 lands like this:
Eldrazified Field
Land (C)
T: Add 1 or W to your mana pool.
Would it be ok with no drawback at all, just as is?