Well, now that Morningtide has come out, we know the Lorwyn dual land cycle---Ancient Amphitheatre (RW), Auntie's Hovel (BR), Gilt-Leaf Palace (BG), Secluded Glen (UB), Wanderwine Hub (WU)---wasn't really finished: we're still missing half the two-color combinations. Murmuring Bosk (BGW), Primal Beyond (WUBRG), and Rustic Clachan (W), despite also being "tribal-reveal" lands, are too different to be counted as part of the cycle, and anyway, they don't properly fix the color balance:
Lorwyn dual "reveal" lands: WW UU BBB RR G (colors unbalanced)
Morningtide "reveal" lands: WWW U BB R GG (colors unbalanced)
total if they were the same cycle: WWWWW UUU BBBBB RRR GGG (colors still unbalanced)
Therefore, since Morningtide lands aren't part of the "cycle," I've been thinking that maybe WotC will finish up the Lorwyn dual lands cycle in Shadowmoor, not necessarily with "tribal-reveal" lands, but perhaps with a dual but non-"tribal-reveal" (that is, dual lands that use some other mechanic) cycle of five lands that takes care of just the other five color combinations: WB, GW, UR, GU, and RG.
- Jon Finkel Facts: (follow the link at left to see more Facts, or add more Facts!)
- Chuck Norris counted to infinity twice—because he was trying to count how much damage Jon Finkel deals in an average game.
- Jon Finkel believes in maintaining a healthy, balanced diet. He gets all his fiber from eating Magic cards for breakfast, and all his protein from eating Magic players for lunch.
It's possible, but it became a lot more unlikely with the tribal lands cycle finished in Morningtide. And there's no reason to expect that every color will have exactly the same amount of color producing lands in every block.
[quote=FirstType;/comments/6041924]Well, now that Morningtide has come out, we know the Lorwyn dual land cycle---Ancient Amphitheatre (RW), Auntie's Hovel (BR), Gilt-Leaf Palace (BG), Secluded Glen (UB), Wanderwine Hub (WU)---wasn't really finished: we're still missing half the two-color combinations. Murmuring Bosk (BGW), Primal Beyond (WUBRG), and Rustic Clachan (W), despite also being "tribal-reveal" lands, are too different to be counted as part of the cycle, and anyway, they don't properly fix the color balance:
*sigh* People just aren't going to give this a rest until Shadowmoor's dead and gone, are they? THERE IS NO DUAL LAND CYCLE. There never was. There was a raceland cycle - the only reason they were split between two sets is that the two-colour lands were all put in Lorwyn and the more/fewer than 2-colour lands went to Morningtide. It's that Wizards block design philosophy of being able to tell just by looking at a card what set it's from. If it's two colours, it's Lorwyn. Otherwise it's Morningtide. That's the only significance to putting 5 duals in Lorwyn; it is not and was never intended to be half of a dual land cycle.
I'm certain the genesis of the dual-land "cycle" in Lorwyn was during Lorwyn design, for the reasons listed in the preview article: to support aggro decks in the specified tribes.
That doesn't really imply anything one way or another about this question, though, which is: during Shadowmoor design, would the team create a complementary cycle that "completes" the 10-pair set with Lorwyn's cycle?
There are a lot of good reasons to do so. If Shadowmoor contains no dual lands, it leaves a pretty severe unbalance for block play -- Lorwyn's tribal strategies are supported with strong dual lands, while none of Shadowmoor's strategies are supported by andy dual lands at all. If Shadowmoor just contains a regular 5-color allied pairs cycle, it makes kind of an awkward balance of which pairs are supported and which aren't. That leaves one strategy that both leads to good Block Constructed balance and helps illustrate the "two blocks, tied at the hip" concept: a cycle that fills in the pairs left open by Lorwyn. (This is also the kind of too-clever thing that Mark Rosewater loves to do with set and block design.)
Without seeing more of Shadowmoor, I don't see how we can reject this possibility out of hand.
(This is also the kind of too-clever thing that Mark Rosewater loves to do with set and block design.)
Y'know I actually consider this to be a very strong argument for why we may see these dual lands in Shadowmoor. I can see Mark getting a real kick out of teasing us with a Dual land cycle in Lorwyn, then fooling us by completing it as a tribal land cycle in Morningtide that leaves out some of the duals, and then double-fooling us by actually making it two cycles in one and putting the other duals in Shadowmoor.
Y'know I actually consider this to be a very strong argument for why we may see these dual lands in Shadowmoor. I can see Mark getting a real kick out of teasing us with a Dual land cycle in Lorwyn, then fooling us by completing it as a tribal land cycle in Morningtide that leaves out some of the duals, and then double-fooling us by actually making it two cycles in one and putting the other duals in Shadowmoor.
Exactly. Mark has either been behind, or a huge booster of, all the crazy cross-block groupings of cards in the past (the Atog megacycle, the Legendary Land mega-megacycle, finishing incomplete cycles from the past like the Voices, the historical legends in Time Spiral, etc.) He's also extremely excited by the unique Lorwyn/Shadowmoor structure. I don't think it's possible to discount this idea entirely as long as he's in the picture.
(And as I think about it, I think the "dual lands for block constructed" issue is pretty important too. Would it really make sense to force Shadowmoor-based decks to rely on Lorwyn tribal duals for their mana fixing?)
Just on the basis of flavor, I think River of Tears could be futureshifted from Shadowmoor. That's kind of a 'dark' card, in name and flavor text at least.
There needs to be a cycle. They HAVE to fill in the missing 5 land gap. If they had just done friendly colors or just enemy colors in Lor, that would have been one thing. But they did not. Its now easyer to make a black/green deck than a white/green deck(or just as easy, it WILL be harder when TS and CS is out), which does not realy make any sense. We WILL see a cycle of the missing lands: WB RU GW UG GR
I think that the remaining colors will get their own duals, but they will not be tribe based. Who knows:
WB: ...unless you have one or more creatures in your graveyard.
WG: ...unless you control a creature.
UR: ...unless a creature left play this turn.
UG: ...unless a creature came into play this turn.
RG: ...unless a creature attacked this turn.
These are just examples and I am well aware that they are not balanced, but you understand. The remaining colors could be filled in with different conditions than revealing a creature type.
I'm sure Shadowmoor will have mana-fixing. I don't think there's any need to repeat the "reveal" dual cycles for the last 4 pairs. Keep in mind Shadowmoor will be trying to be distinct from Lorwyn - I wouldn't expect any cross-cycles.
Also, remember that the Pain lands weren't printed in the same block, I believe the Allied colored ones were printed in Ice Age and the Enemy color ones printed in Apocolypse.
No. When TS and CS are out we still have Xth Edition, which has 10 different dual lands
......... sigh.......
Duals in the format (I am not counting the 'tri' land)
in X (which will rotate with IX July 2009) : 10, pain one of each kind.
Whatever will be in IX will replace them.(City of Brass, Rav Dual... I do not know)
in CS (which will rotate with ”Rock” Sept 2008): 5, CitPT: Friendly only.
in FS (which will rotate with ”Rock” Sept 2008): 5, Odd, Friendly only.
One would hope something in Rock or before would replace these. Since they make making friendly color decks easier (as I feel they should be)
In Lor (which will rotate with ”Live” Sept 2009):RB,WR,BU,BW,GB
This makes it easier to run decks of these colors. I know some lists where running the WR one with no giants, just because there is not replacement for it in the formate.
One would hope that wizards would do something to make all deck colors more viable.(well at lest all ENEMY colors decks, equally viable) Why should it be easier to make a WR and a GB enemy colors than any other enemy combo, all the way until 2009? Since Mor and Lor will rotate together, it only make sense that they fill in the missing peaces in Mor, making all enemy color combos equally viable.
Shadowmoor is also not Ravnica. Magic is not always obsessed with balancing the color pairs.
It isn't?
Historically, dual lands always came in balanced sets of five, except when a set's theme explicitly called for a non-standard color pair to be more powerful (Odyssey block therefore had a "cycle" of five dual lands that went BW - BU - BR - BG - GW.) For game balance purposes, it's been consistently believed that every allied color pair should have equal ability to build decks.
Invasion block expanded that to a 10-card cycle temporarily by completing the painland cycle, but Ravnica expanded it more dramatically -- it came along with all ten painlands in the coreset and its own two cycles of strong dual lands. Even though Ravnica is out of Standard, though, the ten dual lands are still in the core, and Aaron Forsythe has gone on record as saying that being able to build the gamut of two-color decks is more important than enforcing ally/enemy color identity.
So that all said: remember that Lorwyn and Shadowmoor will be played together in a block constructed format. Given this renewed emphasis on giving all color pairs the tools they need, how does it make sense for all decks based on Shadowmoor mechanics and themes to be stuck with only Lorwyn's five dual lands for color-fixing -- and not just that, but to need to run tribal creatures to enable them, when Lorwyn decks have no need to look to Shadowmoor for anything?
This makes it seem quite likely that Shadowmoor will have some dual lands. If it does, a cycle of allied lands wouldn't make much sense -- Standard really doesn't need a fifth U/B land right now. The most sensible thing to do would be to create a cycle, based on an entirely new mechanic somehow linked to Shadowmoor's theme, that covered the colors "left over" by the Lorwyn cycle. That'd give each color pair an affinity with one block or the other in the Block format, and help create a deckbuilding balance between the two -- and between all ten color pairs.
Historically, dual lands always came in balanced sets of five, except when a set's theme explicitly called for a non-standard color pair to be more powerful (Odyssey block therefore had a "cycle" of five dual lands that went BW - BU - BR - BG - GW.) For game balance purposes, it's been consistently believed that every allied color pair should have equal ability to build decks.
You just said it, Charlequin... "except when a set's theme explicitly called for a non-standard color pair to be more powerful". Doesn't the tribe scheme call for a deviation of color-combinations?
I'm pretty sure we'll have some form of multicolor enablers in [SHA], but I don't think having one extra land for a specific color combination would be THAT format-warping. And even if it would, Odissey experience proved that color balance can be messed up from time to time and that it's a healthy change for the game...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-
YOU ARE SURPRISED BY A MANTICORE! IT QUICKLY SHREDS YOUR FLESH AND DEVOURS YOU!
This makes it seem quite likely that Shadowmoor will have some dual lands. If it does, a cycle of allied lands wouldn't make much sense -- Standard really doesn't need a fifth U/B land right now. The most sensible thing to do would be to create a cycle, based on an entirely new mechanic somehow linked to Shadowmoor's theme, that covered the colors "left over" by the Lorwyn cycle. That'd give each color pair an affinity with one block or the other in the Block format, and help create a deckbuilding balance between the two -- and between all ten color pairs.
But keep in mind Shadowmoor's timeframe. It comes out in a few months, and then has a small expansion and then, a few months down the road Time Spiral rotates, and with it the storage lands and the future sight lands, as well as the allied Coldsnap lands. While the Standard of today doesn't need a 5th U/B land, the Standard of 6 months from now may need a 3rd (because only faerie decks can run one of the 2 effectively).
That said, I don't mind the color disparity and think it is healthy for the game. Lorwyn should have major influence on Standard while it is in, and that influence is defined by it's 8 tribes. Shoring up all the weaknesses or holes that Lorwyn has should not be Shadowmoor's job.
You just said it, Charlequin... "except when a set's theme explicitly called for a non-standard color pair to be more powerful". Doesn't the tribe scheme call for a deviation of color-combinations?
Again, we're talking in the context of the entire four-set "megablock." Lorwyn or a similar block operating on its own? Yes, I think it would qualify -- at least, it would make sense to provide customized mana fixing for the color combinations most important to tribal play, and no others.
Lorwyn doesn't operate on its own, however. The place where its mana fixing is most important is Block Constructed -- in Standard, decks will have enough options from Time Spiral and 10th Edition to support pretty much anything. There's nothing, I imagine, about the themes of Lorwyn and Shadowmoor together that demand that only tribal combinations get mana fixing, because Shadowmoor doesn't care about Lorwyn's tribes. It'll have its own themes which can't effectively draw on Lorwyn's lands for mana fixing. If the land cycle isn't "completed," what, exactly, will these Shadowmoor-centric decks use to support a two-color manabase?
I'm pretty sure we'll have some form of multicolor enablers in [SHA], but I don't think having one extra land for a specific color combination would be THAT format-warping.
I'm sure it wouldn't ruin the format, it's just a question of "why not do it?" "Completing the cycle" in Shadowmoor is cool and nifty; it adds more options for mana-fixing to the environment; it makes the mega-Block Constructed format much better balanced; it works well thematically in emphasizing the "two halves of a whole" feel. Once the idea occurred to R&D (and I'm certain it did by the time Lorwyn's file was completed, if not earlier) I don't really see any particular reason not to do it.
While the Standard of today doesn't need a 5th U/B land, the Standard of 6 months from now may need a 3rd (because only faerie decks can run one of the 2 effectively).
The Standard of six months from now will almost certainly already get a third in "Rock."
Shoring up all the weaknesses or holes that Lorwyn has should not be Shadowmoor's job.
Er... it's not a matter of shoring up Lorwyn's "holes"; it's a question of supporting Shadowmoor's own themes.
That said, I don't mind the color disparity and think it is healthy for the game. Lorwyn should have major influence on Standard while it is in, and that influence is defined by it's 8 tribes. Shoring up all the weaknesses or holes that Lorwyn has should not be Shadowmoor's job.
While that may be true. But if Shadowmoor is indeed tied with Lorwyn, then I do think they will deal with this situation somehow. It may not exactly be dual lands that we hope for. Rather, some form of mana fixing involved with Shadowmoor's theme/mechanics.
I personally agree with everyone who said that Lorwyn's land cycle is now complete. Do any of the CIPT duals see much play anyways? Because that is what Lorwyns lands are outside of tribal. I know personally if I am going to make a R/W deck that isn't Giants, I wouldn't use Ancient Amphitheater. So I actually find it more unbalanced if they DO "finish the cycle" without making them have restrictions where you need to play a certain deck.
Basically it's important to balance the colors (which is hardly done anyways) and not color pairs. It's a game about five individual colors and not ten different pairs. People just can't seem to shake Ravnica out of their minds and think lands need to be even accross the board with color producing... Gaea's Cradle, Tolarian Academy, Phyrexian Tower, Shivan Gorge and Serra's Sanctum wasn't even accross the board.
If the land cycle isn't "completed," what, exactly, will these Shadowmoor-centric decks use to support a two-color manabase?
Well, the same thing that any two-color non-Tribal manabase will have in block. Shimmering Grotto, the Vivid land-cycle, and if Shadowmoor does deliver a traditional allied dual cycle, that would go a long way towards making just about any deck (within reason) possible for block. Tribal decks get the benefit of good duals, and tribes are the theme of Lorwyn. If Shadowmoor pushes monocolor then I wouldn't expect a powerful cycle of duals or the patching up of Lorwyn's holes. Rather, it will be mono-color Shadowmoor decks vs Lorwyn tribal decks (and likely the most powerful will be some sort of hybrid). Alternately, if Shadowmoor does support multicolor in some way, then I could see them printing more aggressively costed duals (however these duals would be to support Shadowmoor, not to pick up Lorwyn's pieces).
However I don't think Shadowmoor design should hinge (or have hinged) on what Lorwyn left out. In other words, it shouldn't have been designed thinking of fixing the mana for the whole block.
Lorwyn dual "reveal" lands: WW UU BBB RR G (colors unbalanced)
Morningtide "reveal" lands: WWW U BB R GG (colors unbalanced)
total if they were the same cycle: WWWWW UUU BBBBB RRR GGG (colors still unbalanced)
Therefore, since Morningtide lands aren't part of the "cycle," I've been thinking that maybe WotC will finish up the Lorwyn dual lands cycle in Shadowmoor, not necessarily with "tribal-reveal" lands, but perhaps with a dual but non-"tribal-reveal" (that is, dual lands that use some other mechanic) cycle of five lands that takes care of just the other five color combinations: WB, GW, UR, GU, and RG.
- Jon Finkel believes in maintaining a healthy, balanced diet. He gets all his fiber from eating Magic cards for breakfast, and all his protein from eating Magic players for lunch.
And why do you think that?
WotC will never produce enemy-color fetchlands; they're broken, and they'd be worth at least $15 per. Insanity.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
*sigh* People just aren't going to give this a rest until Shadowmoor's dead and gone, are they? THERE IS NO DUAL LAND CYCLE. There never was. There was a raceland cycle - the only reason they were split between two sets is that the two-colour lands were all put in Lorwyn and the more/fewer than 2-colour lands went to Morningtide. It's that Wizards block design philosophy of being able to tell just by looking at a card what set it's from. If it's two colours, it's Lorwyn. Otherwise it's Morningtide. That's the only significance to putting 5 duals in Lorwyn; it is not and was never intended to be half of a dual land cycle.
Phil
And yet, there's no specific evidence for this.
I'm certain the genesis of the dual-land "cycle" in Lorwyn was during Lorwyn design, for the reasons listed in the preview article: to support aggro decks in the specified tribes.
That doesn't really imply anything one way or another about this question, though, which is: during Shadowmoor design, would the team create a complementary cycle that "completes" the 10-pair set with Lorwyn's cycle?
There are a lot of good reasons to do so. If Shadowmoor contains no dual lands, it leaves a pretty severe unbalance for block play -- Lorwyn's tribal strategies are supported with strong dual lands, while none of Shadowmoor's strategies are supported by andy dual lands at all. If Shadowmoor just contains a regular 5-color allied pairs cycle, it makes kind of an awkward balance of which pairs are supported and which aren't. That leaves one strategy that both leads to good Block Constructed balance and helps illustrate the "two blocks, tied at the hip" concept: a cycle that fills in the pairs left open by Lorwyn. (This is also the kind of too-clever thing that Mark Rosewater loves to do with set and block design.)
Without seeing more of Shadowmoor, I don't see how we can reject this possibility out of hand.
Y'know I actually consider this to be a very strong argument for why we may see these dual lands in Shadowmoor. I can see Mark getting a real kick out of teasing us with a Dual land cycle in Lorwyn, then fooling us by completing it as a tribal land cycle in Morningtide that leaves out some of the duals, and then double-fooling us by actually making it two cycles in one and putting the other duals in Shadowmoor.
Exactly. Mark has either been behind, or a huge booster of, all the crazy cross-block groupings of cards in the past (the Atog megacycle, the Legendary Land mega-megacycle, finishing incomplete cycles from the past like the Voices, the historical legends in Time Spiral, etc.) He's also extremely excited by the unique Lorwyn/Shadowmoor structure. I don't think it's possible to discount this idea entirely as long as he's in the picture.
(And as I think about it, I think the "dual lands for block constructed" issue is pretty important too. Would it really make sense to force Shadowmoor-based decks to rely on Lorwyn tribal duals for their mana fixing?)
WB
RU
GW
UG
GR
WB: ...unless you have one or more creatures in your graveyard.
WG: ...unless you control a creature.
UR: ...unless a creature left play this turn.
UG: ...unless a creature came into play this turn.
RG: ...unless a creature attacked this turn.
These are just examples and I am well aware that they are not balanced, but you understand. The remaining colors could be filled in with different conditions than revealing a creature type.
Lorwyn is not Ravnica. Shadowmoor is also not Ravnica. Magic is not always obsessed with balancing the color pairs.
umm...whats the difference???
Also, remember that the Pain lands weren't printed in the same block, I believe the Allied colored ones were printed in Ice Age and the Enemy color ones printed in Apocolypse.
Extendo
Read my Blog!
Duals in the format (I am not counting the 'tri' land)
in X (which will rotate with IX July 2009) : 10, pain one of each kind.
Whatever will be in IX will replace them.(City of Brass, Rav Dual... I do not know)
in CS (which will rotate with ”Rock” Sept 2008): 5, CitPT: Friendly only.
in FS (which will rotate with ”Rock” Sept 2008): 5, Odd, Friendly only.
One would hope something in Rock or before would replace these. Since they make making friendly color decks easier (as I feel they should be)
In Lor (which will rotate with ”Live” Sept 2009):RB,WR,BU,BW,GB
This makes it easier to run decks of these colors. I know some lists where running the WR one with no giants, just because there is not replacement for it in the formate.
One would hope that wizards would do something to make all deck colors more viable.(well at lest all ENEMY colors decks, equally viable) Why should it be easier to make a WR and a GB enemy colors than any other enemy combo, all the way until 2009? Since Mor and Lor will rotate together, it only make sense that they fill in the missing peaces in Mor, making all enemy color combos equally viable.
No. They won't do it, simply cause Terramoprhic Expanse obsoleted all of the Onslaught Sac lands in general.
My PodCast: http://www.mtgcast.com/road-warrior-otwell
My Email: [EMAIL="otwellc@gmail.com"]otwellc@gmail.com[/EMAIL]
MTGCast Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8125010411
Springboard: http://z15.invisionfree.com/SPRINGBOARD/index.php
Umm????????? No.. LOL Expanse puts into play tapped and doesn't get duals... so.. no...
techoverrated.It isn't?
Historically, dual lands always came in balanced sets of five, except when a set's theme explicitly called for a non-standard color pair to be more powerful (Odyssey block therefore had a "cycle" of five dual lands that went BW - BU - BR - BG - GW.) For game balance purposes, it's been consistently believed that every allied color pair should have equal ability to build decks.
Invasion block expanded that to a 10-card cycle temporarily by completing the painland cycle, but Ravnica expanded it more dramatically -- it came along with all ten painlands in the coreset and its own two cycles of strong dual lands. Even though Ravnica is out of Standard, though, the ten dual lands are still in the core, and Aaron Forsythe has gone on record as saying that being able to build the gamut of two-color decks is more important than enforcing ally/enemy color identity.
So that all said: remember that Lorwyn and Shadowmoor will be played together in a block constructed format. Given this renewed emphasis on giving all color pairs the tools they need, how does it make sense for all decks based on Shadowmoor mechanics and themes to be stuck with only Lorwyn's five dual lands for color-fixing -- and not just that, but to need to run tribal creatures to enable them, when Lorwyn decks have no need to look to Shadowmoor for anything?
This makes it seem quite likely that Shadowmoor will have some dual lands. If it does, a cycle of allied lands wouldn't make much sense -- Standard really doesn't need a fifth U/B land right now. The most sensible thing to do would be to create a cycle, based on an entirely new mechanic somehow linked to Shadowmoor's theme, that covered the colors "left over" by the Lorwyn cycle. That'd give each color pair an affinity with one block or the other in the Block format, and help create a deckbuilding balance between the two -- and between all ten color pairs.
You just said it, Charlequin... "except when a set's theme explicitly called for a non-standard color pair to be more powerful". Doesn't the tribe scheme call for a deviation of color-combinations?
I'm pretty sure we'll have some form of multicolor enablers in [SHA], but I don't think having one extra land for a specific color combination would be THAT format-warping. And even if it would, Odissey experience proved that color balance can be messed up from time to time and that it's a healthy change for the game...
That said, I don't mind the color disparity and think it is healthy for the game. Lorwyn should have major influence on Standard while it is in, and that influence is defined by it's 8 tribes. Shoring up all the weaknesses or holes that Lorwyn has should not be Shadowmoor's job.
Again, we're talking in the context of the entire four-set "megablock." Lorwyn or a similar block operating on its own? Yes, I think it would qualify -- at least, it would make sense to provide customized mana fixing for the color combinations most important to tribal play, and no others.
Lorwyn doesn't operate on its own, however. The place where its mana fixing is most important is Block Constructed -- in Standard, decks will have enough options from Time Spiral and 10th Edition to support pretty much anything. There's nothing, I imagine, about the themes of Lorwyn and Shadowmoor together that demand that only tribal combinations get mana fixing, because Shadowmoor doesn't care about Lorwyn's tribes. It'll have its own themes which can't effectively draw on Lorwyn's lands for mana fixing. If the land cycle isn't "completed," what, exactly, will these Shadowmoor-centric decks use to support a two-color manabase?
I'm sure it wouldn't ruin the format, it's just a question of "why not do it?" "Completing the cycle" in Shadowmoor is cool and nifty; it adds more options for mana-fixing to the environment; it makes the mega-Block Constructed format much better balanced; it works well thematically in emphasizing the "two halves of a whole" feel. Once the idea occurred to R&D (and I'm certain it did by the time Lorwyn's file was completed, if not earlier) I don't really see any particular reason not to do it.
The Standard of six months from now will almost certainly already get a third in "Rock."
Er... it's not a matter of shoring up Lorwyn's "holes"; it's a question of supporting Shadowmoor's own themes.
Basically it's important to balance the colors (which is hardly done anyways) and not color pairs. It's a game about five individual colors and not ten different pairs. People just can't seem to shake Ravnica out of their minds and think lands need to be even accross the board with color producing... Gaea's Cradle, Tolarian Academy, Phyrexian Tower, Shivan Gorge and Serra's Sanctum wasn't even accross the board.
However I don't think Shadowmoor design should hinge (or have hinged) on what Lorwyn left out. In other words, it shouldn't have been designed thinking of fixing the mana for the whole block.