If you want to make a useful comparison you have to look at the context in which the cards are printed, wizards has clearly made an effort in the last several years to improve mana fixing lands. So anything before After revised-unlimited and before ravnica is really not even in the same magic universe as today. You should also take into account gold blocks. in any kind of recent history you have Invasion Ravnica and now Shards. For the manafixing to be relevant we cut to only shards and ravnica. Since this is a very "gold" block it should be very high on the manafixing scale not just in terms of quantity but also quality. certianly it has quantity, but it looks like homelands when concerned with quality when you compare it to ravnica, and with lorwyn block handing it's ass to it, it isn't out of line to be annoyed at the standout lands or lackthereof in this set. It's like wizards has said, "You don't want rare lands that are good and innevitably expensive? Ok, you can have commons and uncommons but theyre not going to be as good."
So after being infracted for triple-post, you immediately make another and to top it, you edit a mod-edited post. Please stop trolling. Infraction issued.
top 2-3 ever for manafixing? Maybe for limited but not constructed. I started magic in Invasion, and it's manafixing was quite good, enemy pain lands and reg cipt lands. Overall manafixing has gotten better since then, might as well invoke tempest and the terrible lands in that. In invasion the manafixing for constructed and limited were far superior to recently previous sets that weren't focused on gold. The past few sets have had better manafixing for constructed period without gold focuses in those sets, if they didnt 4-5 color control in t2 would be using trilands and orchards more instead of vivid lands and filter lands. All those other manafixers you mentioned are narrow usein constructed or garbage.
RE: JIYOR
nothing you mentioned is broken, most of it would remain unplayable, some might become playable (Oh no don't wan't any of these cards to actually see tournament play that would be terrible) cipt or paying mana to get them into play isn't a drawback? what are you smoking? Even you're suggesting a point at which nerf overcomes the benefits of such a card, So what was your point again?
RE: Altjira
Onslaught had the fetchlands, some of the most powerful lands ever printed, and none of those sets had a focus on gold.
And which of those manafixers is tournament playable outside of block? Are any of them really good widespread manafixers outside of block?
In the current environment 4 color decks should't be that dominant (and they really aren't last time I checked a large number of 2 color decks were tier one) But the manafixers wizards printed for the 2 color formats before were way too good. So now when the set is actually multicolored they should compensate for screwing up on the allied sets by making manafixing crap for a set that should focus on shard colors and five color?
Once again I said if they are lands they will be UNCOMMON IE NOT 100$ FOR A SET.
The Artifact Lands pretty much killed any chance of seeing lands with color/creature type/defining characteristics due to how overpowered they made things that keyed off of them. For instance, Bloodhall Ooze would be utterly ridiculous if you could drop a multicolored land to play it.
not if that land were a cipt land, then it would just be good, not overpowered, and if it were only allied colors each cipt land only gets you 1 color to trigger it.
I think one thing is clear, the manafixing in this block has been pretty mediocre. I'm trying to think of a block that had worse manafixing recently and I can't come up with it, yet this is the most gold block ever. So It seems to me they have to make some badass colorfixing. Doesn't have to be lands, but nothing else has really ever been very good for it, so I think there is a high possibility of good multicolored lands in this set. I don't really understand the resistance by posters here, if they do make these lands they are likely to be UNCOMMON ie not that expensive. based on what wiz has already said about staple lands.
Tell me what cards already printed are going to interact with colored lands to be ungodly broken? I'm not talking about good, but broken, good combinations come along constantly and if they didnt something worse would then be good. Will they break formats so that 1 or 2 decks will dominate all other decks into noncompetitiveness or no?
1) Lands would have to be multicolored to be in ARB.
2) Wizards has said it would be a bad idea to print colored lands.
3) ARB will not have lands.
1+2=3
There's a thread in speculation called "what if Alara Reborn had colored lands?" or something of the sort, and I believe that is where the mods want this kind of stuff to go.
I'd like to see the exact article to see what context they put that comment into. Wizards says a lot of things are bad ideas then does them anyway, or just nerfs them. Things change with time and context. In the context of an all multicolored set they may find that they want to print colored lands, but if they think that being colored alone is too powerful, then they simply raise the level of cost for the card to have the effect. So Dryad arbor is essentially a cipt tapped land that is a 1/1 creature making it easy to kill by creature kill color hate ect. They've already bridged that gap, sure they think it's potentially abusable, but clearly not that abusable (did dryad arbor unbalance any format?) It's merely a matter of balance. Before Arbor we had lands that become colored when you make them into creatures, (manlands and land enchants that make them into manlands) Would they want to make lands like the artifact lands where they just tap for one color don't cipt and are colored: No, probably not. (Though the number of cards to abuse that is much lower than the number that could abuse artifact lands so I don't really think it's as bad as all that)
So what if theres a thread in speculation called that? Threads overlap topics, they aren't mutually exlusive, and once again it seems as if the moderators have decided something and want to shove into a corner anyone who doesn't agree with them, even if their case is very weak.
I even agree that colored artifacts are more likely than colored lands, but I find the colored land discussion and speculation more interesting, colored artifacts aren't going to be that much fun to build around, the lands would be. So I should talk about the boring option instead.. ok no ty. Ban me if you want, but I'm not going to be intimidated when I'm in the right on this forum talking about things very strongly indicated by the information we have.
We are limiting discussion so that discussion that is reasonably bounded by the topic of a new rumor thread is allowed, while wild speculation or hashing out ideas that are worth talking about but which seem to contradict the facts we already have is limited to the Speculation forum. This has always been the rule. In this case, the colored-lands speculation is without factual basis and actually contradicted by what information we do have, so talk about it does not belong anywhere but Speculation, period.[/quote]
How does it contradict the facts we have? The only rule laid out is all cards in the set must be multicolored. transguild courier would not break that rule, dryad arbor if it had one more color would not break that rule and anything else that has the characteristic of being of 2 colors or more would not break that rule. Nothing being talked about other than that has any factual basis, every single supposition about a possible artifact is speculation and is not based in fact. It will only be fact when we know for certain what the cards are.
Saying that we do not respect the patrons means that you apparently missed the point at all.
Every single ARB thread since Ardent Plea was previewed is flooded by "colored lands" speculation (with usual spicy addition of inter-member flaming sometimes) therefore the threads are cluttered, the same ideas repeat over and over in each thread, and for the whole time, the majority of people still did not get the message that all of this should belong to one or two threads in Speculation, if they really feel compelled to speculate on that. Because we respect the patrons and members, we are trying to keep the threads as readable as possible, not a horrible swamp of random ideas.
Isn't this a thread to discuss and speculate on what cards the pictures for these playmats will be? I've seen far more comments speculating on a million kinds of colored artifacts most of the time being quite repetitive and "cluttering". Why are those speculations valid and colored land speculation not? The rumor mill is a center of speculation, it always has been. The difference between your preferred content and mine aren't the difference between clutter and order, but between your clutter and the clutter that exists naturely.
Sometimes I can agree with what a moderator is saying, but when you're essentially tring to limit the conversation to what sounds appealing to you without any logical rules being followed (at least not on this thread) I just don't understand the objective. Is it not so that the rumor mill has been fairly slow since the last set came out? Do you just want the forum to be an orderly peace of nothing? Just because you think something is unlikely doesn't mean it's not interesting to others, and certianly in this case colored lands are highly applicable to the thread and what's been spoiled so far.
multicolored lands would fit the set's announced limitations, and these pictures look very landish (the backgrounds are a combo of basic land arts already used), as well as somewhat artifactish(same), so it makes sense that this thread is divided between artifact and land speculation.
A cipt artifact land would have little to no benefit for affinity which is a fast deck, so that's not really a problem, a land that has a casting cost is feasible as well it would just require a keyword that says that on the land. I don't really see a problem with a r/g artifact either, artifacts had alot of synergy with red in mirrodin, things like atog and shrapnel blast. A lot of things are possible for these pictures. In this set I think it may be less likely that there be r/g artifacts because of the esper thing in this block, but then it is a multicolored only set, and wizards likes to print a cycle of things alot, so if there are two colored color based ability artifacts (like the new icy, and whatnot in the last set) then they may just do that, can't tell until we get there.
On this thread so far, I have seen people post that these could be colored lands, colored artifact lands, regular (colorless) artifacts, and hybrid something.
I can't stress enough that people need to think and rethink and read and reread before posting.
I know this forum can create intelligent, engaging, respectful discussion.
Lets attempt it for this set, please.
This forum does allow people to be wrong, obviously, but try to do some research before making something up and posting it. Some ideas do melt the brain, you know.
So a person is disrespectful and stupid for suggesting wizards might tweak things by creating colored lands? Wizards have creating wild new mechanics a zillion times, this wouldn't take the cake. Reading the recent moderator posts these days really makes me wonder if I want to visit this site at all. You're not making it interesting engaging intelligent and you're certainly not respecting the people who keep the site going: the patrons.
no that's still hybrid. The idea of them being artifact lands that don't come into play tapped and tap for 2 colors doesn't work for me. They have to be gold, so they either have to create a mechanic that makes them lands you cast, or just a static color ability on them. (If they are lands) I could go with them also being artifacts, though I think that's less likely than my 2nd example. I could see them being cipt 2 color producing and being being two color lands with some other bonus (as that seems somewhat weak) maybe a secondary tap ability of
(+this card is blue and black and cipt)
so tap for u or black
plus
1colorless+tap: add b/r or u/w to your mana pool
They really look like they must be mana producing, the first looks just like obelisk of grixis except stuck in the ground. They also imply that they are very land and artifact oriented. Here's a wacky idea what about cipt artifact lands that produce allied colors and are also those colors no matter where they are?
So like Mistvein boulderpost
artifact land
comes into play tapped
this counts as both a black and blue card no matter where it is
tap for blue or black.
So it's more vulnerable to hate than most lands, is easier to build around but only produces 2 colors so it's weaker than the new standard of cipt lands producing 3 colors. Probably just a land though. or maybe they have a cost to put into play and do more.
So like Mistvein boulderpost
comes into play tapped
as this comes into play pay UB or sacrifice it
this counts as both a black and blue card no matter where it is
tap for any combination of 2 mana of UBR or W.
the only art I like is the Green White card, the rest are pretty awful. Very landish I say, very landish.
I don't see an actual problem with multicolored(gold) land, generally it would be more of an advantage than disadvantage since you can build around it. It would need to say something like "This land counts as both x and y color anywhere it is" You could also have lands with casting costs so like, RG "Monument Peak Pines" Keyword = "You may not play this land from your hand as a land play, it must be cast, and does not count toward your 1 land per turn and cannot be countered" comes into play tapped, when this comes into play return a land to your hand or sac. Tap for R + G. There multi-colored but probably not overpowered. might even need another meaningful ability to be decent. It couldn't become a color and work it would have to start out that color, else it wouldn't be multicolor. Course this set doesn't need land to be good, but there is certianly design space for it to work.
This seems pretty cool in that a lot more new cards will show up in magic. Which also means a lot more older cards may become money since the faster wiz produces new interaction the harder it is to foresee broken synergies/combos. Anyhow seems cool all around, should make drafting the set actually worthwhile(ie fun and profitable) on mtgo.
"You forget that one of the easiest ways to get land is to go to a tournament"
Eh? It was like a year after I started playing magic before I ever went to a tournament, and I played at a relatively tournament interested store in a high population high magic popularity area (southern california). Most people start the game casually and many never go to a tournament, you need lands right at the outset later on you could wipe your ass with basic land. Basically if you have a ccg centered store or a game store that has some concern for magic players there will be a resource to cheaply buy lots of basic land (hopefully, should be at maximum 10 cents per land, and for basic really more like 2-5 cents each.) If you don't you're pretty hosed and will need to buy a precon (which isn't a horrible prospect, but if youre like me and liked starting with random stuff its another barrier to getting people into the game.
If you want to make a useful comparison you have to look at the context in which the cards are printed, wizards has clearly made an effort in the last several years to improve mana fixing lands. So anything before After revised-unlimited and before ravnica is really not even in the same magic universe as today. You should also take into account gold blocks. in any kind of recent history you have Invasion Ravnica and now Shards. For the manafixing to be relevant we cut to only shards and ravnica. Since this is a very "gold" block it should be very high on the manafixing scale not just in terms of quantity but also quality. certianly it has quantity, but it looks like homelands when concerned with quality when you compare it to ravnica, and with lorwyn block handing it's ass to it, it isn't out of line to be annoyed at the standout lands or lackthereof in this set. It's like wizards has said, "You don't want rare lands that are good and innevitably expensive? Ok, you can have commons and uncommons but theyre not going to be as good."
So after being infracted for triple-post, you immediately make another and to top it, you edit a mod-edited post. Please stop trolling. Infraction issued.
top 2-3 ever for manafixing? Maybe for limited but not constructed. I started magic in Invasion, and it's manafixing was quite good, enemy pain lands and reg cipt lands. Overall manafixing has gotten better since then, might as well invoke tempest and the terrible lands in that. In invasion the manafixing for constructed and limited were far superior to recently previous sets that weren't focused on gold. The past few sets have had better manafixing for constructed period without gold focuses in those sets, if they didnt 4-5 color control in t2 would be using trilands and orchards more instead of vivid lands and filter lands. All those other manafixers you mentioned are narrow usein constructed or garbage.
RE: JIYOR
nothing you mentioned is broken, most of it would remain unplayable, some might become playable (Oh no don't wan't any of these cards to actually see tournament play that would be terrible) cipt or paying mana to get them into play isn't a drawback? what are you smoking? Even you're suggesting a point at which nerf overcomes the benefits of such a card, So what was your point again?
RE: Altjira
Onslaught had the fetchlands, some of the most powerful lands ever printed, and none of those sets had a focus on gold.
And which of those manafixers is tournament playable outside of block? Are any of them really good widespread manafixers outside of block?
In the current environment 4 color decks should't be that dominant (and they really aren't last time I checked a large number of 2 color decks were tier one) But the manafixers wizards printed for the 2 color formats before were way too good. So now when the set is actually multicolored they should compensate for screwing up on the allied sets by making manafixing crap for a set that should focus on shard colors and five color?
Once again I said if they are lands they will be UNCOMMON IE NOT 100$ FOR A SET.
not if that land were a cipt land, then it would just be good, not overpowered, and if it were only allied colors each cipt land only gets you 1 color to trigger it.
Tell me what cards already printed are going to interact with colored lands to be ungodly broken? I'm not talking about good, but broken, good combinations come along constantly and if they didnt something worse would then be good. Will they break formats so that 1 or 2 decks will dominate all other decks into noncompetitiveness or no?
I'd like to see the exact article to see what context they put that comment into. Wizards says a lot of things are bad ideas then does them anyway, or just nerfs them. Things change with time and context. In the context of an all multicolored set they may find that they want to print colored lands, but if they think that being colored alone is too powerful, then they simply raise the level of cost for the card to have the effect. So Dryad arbor is essentially a cipt tapped land that is a 1/1 creature making it easy to kill by creature kill color hate ect. They've already bridged that gap, sure they think it's potentially abusable, but clearly not that abusable (did dryad arbor unbalance any format?) It's merely a matter of balance. Before Arbor we had lands that become colored when you make them into creatures, (manlands and land enchants that make them into manlands) Would they want to make lands like the artifact lands where they just tap for one color don't cipt and are colored: No, probably not. (Though the number of cards to abuse that is much lower than the number that could abuse artifact lands so I don't really think it's as bad as all that)
So what if theres a thread in speculation called that? Threads overlap topics, they aren't mutually exlusive, and once again it seems as if the moderators have decided something and want to shove into a corner anyone who doesn't agree with them, even if their case is very weak.
I even agree that colored artifacts are more likely than colored lands, but I find the colored land discussion and speculation more interesting, colored artifacts aren't going to be that much fun to build around, the lands would be. So I should talk about the boring option instead.. ok no ty. Ban me if you want, but I'm not going to be intimidated when I'm in the right on this forum talking about things very strongly indicated by the information we have.
How does it contradict the facts we have? The only rule laid out is all cards in the set must be multicolored. transguild courier would not break that rule, dryad arbor if it had one more color would not break that rule and anything else that has the characteristic of being of 2 colors or more would not break that rule. Nothing being talked about other than that has any factual basis, every single supposition about a possible artifact is speculation and is not based in fact. It will only be fact when we know for certain what the cards are.
Isn't this a thread to discuss and speculate on what cards the pictures for these playmats will be? I've seen far more comments speculating on a million kinds of colored artifacts most of the time being quite repetitive and "cluttering". Why are those speculations valid and colored land speculation not? The rumor mill is a center of speculation, it always has been. The difference between your preferred content and mine aren't the difference between clutter and order, but between your clutter and the clutter that exists naturely.
Sometimes I can agree with what a moderator is saying, but when you're essentially tring to limit the conversation to what sounds appealing to you without any logical rules being followed (at least not on this thread) I just don't understand the objective. Is it not so that the rumor mill has been fairly slow since the last set came out? Do you just want the forum to be an orderly peace of nothing? Just because you think something is unlikely doesn't mean it's not interesting to others, and certianly in this case colored lands are highly applicable to the thread and what's been spoiled so far.
multicolored lands would fit the set's announced limitations, and these pictures look very landish (the backgrounds are a combo of basic land arts already used), as well as somewhat artifactish(same), so it makes sense that this thread is divided between artifact and land speculation.
So a person is disrespectful and stupid for suggesting wizards might tweak things by creating colored lands? Wizards have creating wild new mechanics a zillion times, this wouldn't take the cake. Reading the recent moderator posts these days really makes me wonder if I want to visit this site at all. You're not making it interesting engaging intelligent and you're certainly not respecting the people who keep the site going: the patrons.
(+this card is blue and black and cipt)
so tap for u or black
plus
1colorless+tap: add b/r or u/w to your mana pool
So like Mistvein boulderpost
artifact land
comes into play tapped
this counts as both a black and blue card no matter where it is
tap for blue or black.
So it's more vulnerable to hate than most lands, is easier to build around but only produces 2 colors so it's weaker than the new standard of cipt lands producing 3 colors. Probably just a land though. or maybe they have a cost to put into play and do more.
So like Mistvein boulderpost
comes into play tapped
as this comes into play pay UB or sacrifice it
this counts as both a black and blue card no matter where it is
tap for any combination of 2 mana of UBR or W.
the only art I like is the Green White card, the rest are pretty awful. Very landish I say, very landish.
Eh? It was like a year after I started playing magic before I ever went to a tournament, and I played at a relatively tournament interested store in a high population high magic popularity area (southern california). Most people start the game casually and many never go to a tournament, you need lands right at the outset later on you could wipe your ass with basic land. Basically if you have a ccg centered store or a game store that has some concern for magic players there will be a resource to cheaply buy lots of basic land (hopefully, should be at maximum 10 cents per land, and for basic really more like 2-5 cents each.) If you don't you're pretty hosed and will need to buy a precon (which isn't a horrible prospect, but if youre like me and liked starting with random stuff its another barrier to getting people into the game.