And you are missing the most basic point of my post in turn: these are BORING. Can you ever imagine anyone, anywhere, happy to pull one of these? Especially anyone who'd been playing long enough to get Khans ETBT + gain a life lands? They aren't even Limited filler, because as uncommons, you won't see them frequently and when you do, there's a good change you aren't playing those colors.
So, exactly who did they make thee cards for? They're terrible in Limited due to rarity, and they're bad everywhere else due to there being better options.
Oh, lord forbid, we get some BORING UNCOMMONS in a set. I am gonna send LETTERS OF DISCONTENT to wizards because one of my 3 uncommons in my booster pack was BORING. I didn't ignore your most basic point -- it just amounted to "boohoo" to me. Also, reiterating your point about the KTK lands means that you've, again, ignored the context in which these lands exist. Innistrad isn't a set bursting at the seams with 3-colored draft archetypes, so it is not going to have 10 duals that gain 1 life in the common slots. Apples and oranges.
I don't imagine you play a lot of limited if you actually think this. The OGW cycle was highly useful -- and that was in a set with a 6th color that they didn't tap for! Even if they didn't all get drafted each time they appeared, that doesn't mean they weren't still helpful to the function of the format. There is no reason to believe the same isn't true for these lands, especially after the years of experience they have designing these formats.
As VulpineShine alludes to, they can't spend creative resources reinventing the wheel on every single card in every single set.
I like these lands. Let the mechanics of the game carry its complexity. If you have three lines of text on every card you'll get bogged down in that and not in the actual play.
A set is the sum of its parts, maybe more if they interact well, but a product of the component nonetheless. What we've seen so far out of INN 2.0 is some good cards dripping with flavor and design, but also some disappointing and recycled mechanics, the new content moderately tepid. While I'm optimistic for the set, and what I've seen so far makes it seem the best set in several years, I think its still far too early to make any judgments and the more disappointments like this cycle the more reason to put a leash on the enthusiasm. If large swathes of the rest of the set is phoned in and wizards leaked the best content first, it could turn out bad. so every flop spoiler is important, every one knocked out of the ballpark is important.
whats particularly jarring about these lands is how minimal effort it would take to continue the trend of minor upside duals for limited purposes, like the +1 life lands. Theres ample design space to keep that going for the next decade no sweat- ETBT is such a drawback it allows all sorts of minor perks without breaking the game. If wizards can't reinvent the wheel every set, they should hire new designers who can. The fact wizards have opted for generic lands instead of new content and plan on recycling them endlessly is a bad omen
theres nothing gained by having generic tap duals in limited instead of even the most slightly more powerful tap duals with some minor upside. Its not just that its boring, its poor design, or a total lack of design. Rather than come up with some clever new variation on the uncommon cycle of limited filler lands each block, they just phoned it in and vanillas now.
After I explained to you why you were wrong in the other thread you thought you'd try this one?
so you dodged responding to me in one thread, just to reply to this one only to say "a-ha there are two threads on the same subject!"
It looks like something went wonk with my reply to you in that thread so I'll answer here
A set is the sum of its parts, maybe more if they interact well, but a product of the component nonetheless. What we've seen so far out of INN 2.0 is some good cards dripping with flavor and design, but also some disappointing and recycled mechanics, the new content moderately tepid. While I'm optimistic for the set, and what I've seen so far makes it seem the best set in several years, I think its still far too early to make any judgments and the more disappointments like this cycle the more reason to put a leash on the enthusiasm. If large swathes of the rest of the set is phoned in and wizards leaked the best content first, it could turn out bad. so every flop spoiler is important, every one knocked out of the ballpark is important.
whats particularly jarring about these lands is how minimal effort it would take to continue the trend of minor upside duals for limited purposes, like the +1 life lands. Theres ample design space to keep that going for the next decade no sweat- ETBT is such a drawback it allows all sorts of minor perks without breaking the game. If wizards can't reinvent the wheel every set, they should hire new designers who can. The fact wizards have opted for generic lands instead of new content and plan on recycling them endlessly is a bad omen
First of all every Set has great/pushed, good, okay and bad cards. There has to be MaRo has specifically said they design bad cards,because A) you can't have all good cards and B), part of the game is being able to evaluate good cards from bad. So when you say every flop spoiler is important, you're simply wrong. The majority of the cards are designed for Limited, some for Standard some for Commander, some are designed for Casual kitchen table play, some are simply filler.
Reinventing the wheel every six months is stupid when the wheel works just fine as it is. Trying to improve every single aspect is what leads to power creep. Also there's not as much design space as you think there is, for every card that gets in a set there's 3-5 that don't. Does the card you designed break the game? No, but it's unbalanced and bad for limited.
Let's look at it
Decaying Lichyard
Land (U)
Decaying Lichyard enters the battlefield tapped.
When Decaying Lichyard enters the battlefield, put the top card of your library into your graveyard
T: Add G or B to your mana pool
On it's own not bad G/B has a lot of graveyard interaction especially in a set like this, what about the other pairings How much Graveyard interaction do you see R/W or U/R having? How many draft archetypes do you think are going to revolve around the graveyard even in a set where graveyard is a theme maybe two at the most? If you don't draft several cards with delirium and/or graveyard interaction that card is significantly worse for you then a simple ETBT land.
These lands are the average base level for mana fixing in a set. In a set where manafixing is more important like say Khans (which was also a very slow limited format which is why they did the gain lands to reduce the effectiveness of aggro decks) we will probably get lands that have an effect. In sets where they are actively pushing mono colour with a splash like theros we may only get evolving wilds and unknown shores. (where's your outrage that they keep printing that?)
You're asking for complexity for the sake of complexity which is simply bad design.
As one who likes to brainstorm duel decks and other precons, I welcome having simple duals like these.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Honestly, these things are pretty annoying in an otherwise cool set. It's like having a old, dusty jar of pickled eggs at a lavish banquet...
Very few people are excited by toilets either. But they do what they do, and we are better of for it. Not everything that is good is exciting.
the bigger question here is going to be, do you need a toilet if you don't poop?
meaning, is this set the correct set to introduce these generic taplands into, or would it have been better to wait for a set/block thats a better fit.
we won't know until the entire set is spoiled, but if there isnt' a lot of multicolor/multicolor support i'd say it was a total waste and they were shoved in just because of some stupid expectation that every block have lands that make two colors of mana
Honestly, these things are pretty annoying in an otherwise cool set. It's like having a old, dusty jar of pickled eggs at a lavish banquet...
Very few people are excited by toilets either. But they do what they do, and we are better of for it. Not everything that is good is exciting.
the bigger question here is going to be, do you need a toilet if you don't poop?
meaning, is this set the correct set to introduce these generic taplands into, or would it have been better to wait for a set/block thats a better fit.
we won't know until the entire set is spoiled, but if there isnt' a lot of multicolor/multicolor support i'd say it was a total waste and they were shoved in just because of some stupid expectation that every block have lands that make two colors of mana
In general, I trust the opinion of a team of professional game designers over some random person on the internet. If WotC thought adding these cards to the set was a good idea, who am I to say it wasn't? They are the ones who have actually seen the whole set, played with any of the cards, seen what sets will be coming in the future, and have real experience with how the dynamics of a set actually works (the players not being able to change the set is a big limitation, it's like with a science experiment). So yeah, I'm running on the assumption that it was a good idea until I have reason to think otherwise.
Honestly, these things are pretty annoying in an otherwise cool set. It's like having a old, dusty jar of pickled eggs at a lavish banquet...
Very few people are excited by toilets either. But they do what they do, and we are better of for it. Not everything that is good is exciting.
the bigger question here is going to be, do you need a toilet if you don't poop?
meaning, is this set the correct set to introduce these generic taplands into, or would it have been better to wait for a set/block thats a better fit.
we won't know until the entire set is spoiled, but if there isnt' a lot of multicolor/multicolor support i'd say it was a total waste and they were shoved in just because of some stupid expectation that every block have lands that make two colors of mana
In general, I trust the opinion of a team of professional game designers over some random person on the internet. If WotC thought adding these cards to the set was a good idea, who am I to say it wasn't? They are the ones who have actually seen the whole set, played with any of the cards, seen what sets will be coming in the future, and have real experience with how the dynamics of a set actually works (the players not being able to change the set is a big limitation, it's like with a science experiment). So yeah, I'm running on the assumption that it was a good idea until I have reason to think otherwise.
It's fine that they're in, but uncommon makes us groan. Giving them even the tiniest edge would have done wonders for their playability, art consumption, rarity...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
Honestly, these things are pretty annoying in an otherwise cool set. It's like having a old, dusty jar of pickled eggs at a lavish banquet...
Very few people are excited by toilets either. But they do what they do, and we are better of for it. Not everything that is good is exciting.
the bigger question here is going to be, do you need a toilet if you don't poop?
meaning, is this set the correct set to introduce these generic taplands into, or would it have been better to wait for a set/block thats a better fit.
we won't know until the entire set is spoiled, but if there isnt' a lot of multicolor/multicolor support i'd say it was a total waste and they were shoved in just because of some stupid expectation that every block have lands that make two colors of mana
In general, I trust the opinion of a team of professional game designers over some random person on the internet. If WotC thought adding these cards to the set was a good idea, who am I to say it wasn't? They are the ones who have actually seen the whole set, played with any of the cards, seen what sets will be coming in the future, and have real experience with how the dynamics of a set actually works (the players not being able to change the set is a big limitation, it's like with a science experiment). So yeah, I'm running on the assumption that it was a good idea until I have reason to think otherwise.
It's fine that they're in, but uncommon makes us groan. Giving them even the tiniest edge would have done wonders for their playability, art consumption, rarity...
Yes, if they were common they would see more play and be less expensive to get. But they would see more play, and that might be a bad thing (i.e. too much multicolour fixing or something like that). And, given, again, WotC actually have the experience here, I'm going to say that was probably the case. Maybe putting these at uncommon was a bad idea, but, it's going to take more than various random assertions to convince me of that.
A set is the sum of its parts, maybe more if they interact well, but a product of the component nonetheless. What we've seen so far out of INN 2.0 is some good cards dripping with flavor and design, but also some disappointing and recycled mechanics, the new content moderately tepid. While I'm optimistic for the set, and what I've seen so far makes it seem the best set in several years, I think its still far too early to make any judgments and the more disappointments like this cycle the more reason to put a leash on the enthusiasm. If large swathes of the rest of the set is phoned in and wizards leaked the best content first, it could turn out bad. so every flop spoiler is important, every one knocked out of the ballpark is important.
whats particularly jarring about these lands is how minimal effort it would take to continue the trend of minor upside duals for limited purposes, like the +1 life lands. Theres ample design space to keep that going for the next decade no sweat- ETBT is such a drawback it allows all sorts of minor perks without breaking the game. If wizards can't reinvent the wheel every set, they should hire new designers who can. The fact wizards have opted for generic lands instead of new content and plan on recycling them endlessly is a bad omen
First of all every Set has great/pushed, good, okay and bad cards. There has to be MaRo has specifically said they design bad cards,because A) you can't have all good cards and B), part of the game is being able to evaluate good cards from bad. So when you say every flop spoiler is important, you're simply wrong. The majority of the cards are designed for Limited, some for Standard some for Commander, some are designed for Casual kitchen table play, some are simply filler.
I said in the other thread that "development decided we needed generic taplands" is a rationalization I can't accept because their reasoning is flawed, and just the same, the concept that "every set needs filler and we can just phone it in with no design" is an excuse that I've never bought- thats not exclusive to this topic, I've railed against this same line from Maro many times in the past.
It is indeed true that 90-95% of cards in any given set won't make it into constructed necessarily because once players determine a dominant strategy it will narrow down to only the small subset of the best. Thats not in dispute. And it is also perfectly legitimate to design maybe the bottom 50-75% of cards with limited clearly in mind to keep the draft environment enjoyable. I'd say wizards often errs by making the line between pushed and unpushed cards too distinct and micromanages with FFLs too much, but thats besides my point here.
My point, instead, is that having cards that aren't pushed for constructed does NOT relieve wizards of the obligation to produce new and innovative designs for these cards. Good design cards don't have to be playable in standard. There is nothing that prevents a limited cycle of filler from having some clever mechanic stapled to them to distinguish them. Because being innovative is unambiguously a requirement for good game design. And when wizards falls back on the crutches of phoning in their filler chaff with no effort, they're designing poorly, and its not excusable.
Do you really disagree with this? Do you believe that wizards is fine in just writing off large chunks of every set as cards they can phone in with a quota system? That they don't even need to bother to slap low effort set gimmicks on them anymore, they could just decide on a cube of limited cards from past sets, shuffle 30 of each color into a pile and reprint all the commons/uncommons and leave new design exclusively for rares/mythics? I make a point of calling them out when they phone in content, whether its big or small or seemingly irrelevant. Losing an uncommon cycle of lands like this to zero effort filler isn't the biggest loss in the world, but when you add up everything that makes a set good or bad, all the minor cards in limited and clogging up kitchen tables used as tokens upsidedown- these cards still count.
Reinventing the wheel every six months is stupid when the wheel works just fine as it is. Trying to improve every single aspect is what leads to power creep. Also there's not as much design space as you think there is, for every card that gets in a set there's 3-5 that don't. Does the card you designed break the game? No, but it's unbalanced and bad for limited.
Let's look at it
Decaying Lichyard
Land (U)
Decaying Lichyard enters the battlefield tapped.
When Decaying Lichyard enters the battlefield, put the top card of your library into your graveyard
T: Add G or B to your mana pool
On it's own not bad G/B has a lot of graveyard interaction especially in a set like this, what about the other pairings How much Graveyard interaction do you see R/W or U/R having? How many draft archetypes do you think are going to revolve around the graveyard even in a set where graveyard is a theme maybe two at the most? If you don't draft several cards with delirium and/or graveyard interaction that card is significantly worse for you then a simple ETBT land.
These lands are the average base level for mana fixing in a set. In a set where manafixing is more important like say Khans (which was also a very slow limited format which is why they did the gain lands to reduce the effectiveness of aggro decks) we will probably get lands that have an effect. In sets where they are actively pushing mono colour with a splash like theros we may only get evolving wilds and unknown shores. (where's your outrage that they keep printing that?)
You're asking for complexity for the sake of complexity which is simply bad design.
You're attacking a strawman there. I don't pretend to come up with a single best idea for what should be the relevant limited land ability in 10 seconds of posting. I probably could go into depth and figure out a relevant little minor perk that would balance the lands for limited, but I'm not going to, because nobody is paying me to do it. Thats wizards job, and they didn't do it. Wizards have all the time in the world to send ideas to development, settle on one, and print it.
Bad design is treading water instead of pushing forward. The cards they print in any set don't have to be any more complex than the cards they've printed in the past, but they can't be vanilla. With a cycle like this, they've said they're comfortable with taking 5 uncommon slots out of this set and sets in the future for zero effort limited cycles of lands that are strictly duller, worse and uninteresting, despite filling a role they've done a dozen times in a row with novel mechanics. Thats a lot more damning than just throwing in a smattering of a paltry few reprints- our status quo has been lowered.
It's fine that they're in, but uncommon makes us groan. Giving them even the tiniest edge would have done wonders for their playability, art consumption, rarity...
That's the ******* point. Do you, or for that matter anyone in this thread, know the first goddamn thing about game design? Because statements like this make me want yell very loudly at you until you shut up and leave. These lands are being used to disincentivize multi-color decks. Yes, they could have easily been duals that enable madness with an ETB discard effect, but this isn't a set that needs extensive multicolor fixing and omnipresent madness enablers, so they weren't those lands. The better a dual is or the more utility it offers, the more it pushes playing multiple colors. If the designers want to pull back on that happening then both of those things (good duals or utility duals) can't be there.
Bad design is treading water instead of pushing forward. The cards they print in any set don't have to be any more complex than the cards they've printed in the past, but they can't be vanilla. With a cycle like this, they've said they're comfortable with taking 5 uncommon slots out of this set and sets in the future for zero effort limited cycles of lands that are strictly duller, worse and uninteresting, despite filling a role they've done a dozen times in a row with novel mechanics. Thats a lot more damning than just throwing in a smattering of a paltry few reprints- our status quo has been lowered.
**** no it's not. Bad design is novelty for novelty's sake with no thought to the ramifications or purpose of that novelty. For instance, the Mad-land idea in my response to Lully (dual lands that discard 1 on ETB)? They are only worthwhile to print if multicolor Madness is a primary mechanic of the block, because you'd need more discard outlets. Otherwise they're just worse than these duals. If SOI is not supposed to be a multicolor environment, then printing better duals is more of a waste of a slot than these duals; because then you'd actively be working against your intended end-state.
Stop trying to convince these people that these lands are what they are which if not exciting, are serviceable. You have to understand as I did a while ago there are people out there who have very little in their lives aside from things like MTG, so therefore take personal offense when things are released which aren't exactly how they want it to be. They need to have something to complain about every single day of their lives or they are unfulfilled. It's verbal vomit, they can't stop themselves from spewing their negativity all over these forums. A normal person would see these lands and say "Meh" and then move on without comment.
They're ******* uncommons, will the peanut gallery shut the hell up? Like seriously. I see this dude furiously trying to explain to you why they made these lands and your counterargument is literally "Well I can't come up with anything better but wizards should because I say"
Like reading through some of these comments physically hurt me.
They are UNCOMMONS for LIMITED PURPOSES. Myself and anyone else foiling out an enemy colored edh deck will likely pick up a foil in their colors, and guess what? They'll never see play anywhere outside of limited or edh, just like 95% of every set printed. There will be a rare land cycle, whether it's battle lands or checklands, and I'm sure people will take offense to either of those being printed as well, and this whole thing will start over again.
But seriously, the complaining about some generic limited mana fixers is REALLY stupid and pointless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard
Meh
Modern BUWEsper ControlWUB BRUGrixis DelverURB WRBGKiki ChordGBRW WBGAbzan MidrangeGBW BRGJundGRB
Oh, lord forbid, we get some BORING UNCOMMONS in a set. I am gonna send LETTERS OF DISCONTENT to wizards because one of my 3 uncommons in my booster pack was BORING. I didn't ignore your most basic point -- it just amounted to "boohoo" to me. Also, reiterating your point about the KTK lands means that you've, again, ignored the context in which these lands exist. Innistrad isn't a set bursting at the seams with 3-colored draft archetypes, so it is not going to have 10 duals that gain 1 life in the common slots. Apples and oranges.
I don't imagine you play a lot of limited if you actually think this. The OGW cycle was highly useful -- and that was in a set with a 6th color that they didn't tap for! Even if they didn't all get drafted each time they appeared, that doesn't mean they weren't still helpful to the function of the format. There is no reason to believe the same isn't true for these lands, especially after the years of experience they have designing these formats.
As VulpineShine alludes to, they can't spend creative resources reinventing the wheel on every single card in every single set.
whats particularly jarring about these lands is how minimal effort it would take to continue the trend of minor upside duals for limited purposes, like the +1 life lands. Theres ample design space to keep that going for the next decade no sweat- ETBT is such a drawback it allows all sorts of minor perks without breaking the game. If wizards can't reinvent the wheel every set, they should hire new designers who can. The fact wizards have opted for generic lands instead of new content and plan on recycling them endlessly is a bad omen
It looks like something went wonk with my reply to you in that thread so I'll answer here
First of all every Set has great/pushed, good, okay and bad cards. There has to be MaRo has specifically said they design bad cards,because A) you can't have all good cards and B), part of the game is being able to evaluate good cards from bad. So when you say every flop spoiler is important, you're simply wrong. The majority of the cards are designed for Limited, some for Standard some for Commander, some are designed for Casual kitchen table play, some are simply filler.
Reinventing the wheel every six months is stupid when the wheel works just fine as it is. Trying to improve every single aspect is what leads to power creep. Also there's not as much design space as you think there is, for every card that gets in a set there's 3-5 that don't. Does the card you designed break the game? No, but it's unbalanced and bad for limited.
Let's look at it
On it's own not bad G/B has a lot of graveyard interaction especially in a set like this, what about the other pairings How much Graveyard interaction do you see R/W or U/R having? How many draft archetypes do you think are going to revolve around the graveyard even in a set where graveyard is a theme maybe two at the most? If you don't draft several cards with delirium and/or graveyard interaction that card is significantly worse for you then a simple ETBT land.
These lands are the average base level for mana fixing in a set. In a set where manafixing is more important like say Khans (which was also a very slow limited format which is why they did the gain lands to reduce the effectiveness of aggro decks) we will probably get lands that have an effect. In sets where they are actively pushing mono colour with a splash like theros we may only get evolving wilds and unknown shores. (where's your outrage that they keep printing that?)
You're asking for complexity for the sake of complexity which is simply bad design.
Very few people are excited by toilets either. But they do what they do, and we are better of for it. Not everything that is good is exciting.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
the bigger question here is going to be, do you need a toilet if you don't poop?
meaning, is this set the correct set to introduce these generic taplands into, or would it have been better to wait for a set/block thats a better fit.
we won't know until the entire set is spoiled, but if there isnt' a lot of multicolor/multicolor support i'd say it was a total waste and they were shoved in just because of some stupid expectation that every block have lands that make two colors of mana
In general, I trust the opinion of a team of professional game designers over some random person on the internet. If WotC thought adding these cards to the set was a good idea, who am I to say it wasn't? They are the ones who have actually seen the whole set, played with any of the cards, seen what sets will be coming in the future, and have real experience with how the dynamics of a set actually works (the players not being able to change the set is a big limitation, it's like with a science experiment). So yeah, I'm running on the assumption that it was a good idea until I have reason to think otherwise.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It's fine that they're in, but uncommon makes us groan. Giving them even the tiniest edge would have done wonders for their playability, art consumption, rarity...
Feel free to tell me yours!
Yes, if they were common they would see more play and be less expensive to get. But they would see more play, and that might be a bad thing (i.e. too much multicolour fixing or something like that). And, given, again, WotC actually have the experience here, I'm going to say that was probably the case. Maybe putting these at uncommon was a bad idea, but, it's going to take more than various random assertions to convince me of that.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I said in the other thread that "development decided we needed generic taplands" is a rationalization I can't accept because their reasoning is flawed, and just the same, the concept that "every set needs filler and we can just phone it in with no design" is an excuse that I've never bought- thats not exclusive to this topic, I've railed against this same line from Maro many times in the past.
It is indeed true that 90-95% of cards in any given set won't make it into constructed necessarily because once players determine a dominant strategy it will narrow down to only the small subset of the best. Thats not in dispute. And it is also perfectly legitimate to design maybe the bottom 50-75% of cards with limited clearly in mind to keep the draft environment enjoyable. I'd say wizards often errs by making the line between pushed and unpushed cards too distinct and micromanages with FFLs too much, but thats besides my point here.
My point, instead, is that having cards that aren't pushed for constructed does NOT relieve wizards of the obligation to produce new and innovative designs for these cards. Good design cards don't have to be playable in standard. There is nothing that prevents a limited cycle of filler from having some clever mechanic stapled to them to distinguish them. Because being innovative is unambiguously a requirement for good game design. And when wizards falls back on the crutches of phoning in their filler chaff with no effort, they're designing poorly, and its not excusable.
Do you really disagree with this? Do you believe that wizards is fine in just writing off large chunks of every set as cards they can phone in with a quota system? That they don't even need to bother to slap low effort set gimmicks on them anymore, they could just decide on a cube of limited cards from past sets, shuffle 30 of each color into a pile and reprint all the commons/uncommons and leave new design exclusively for rares/mythics? I make a point of calling them out when they phone in content, whether its big or small or seemingly irrelevant. Losing an uncommon cycle of lands like this to zero effort filler isn't the biggest loss in the world, but when you add up everything that makes a set good or bad, all the minor cards in limited and clogging up kitchen tables used as tokens upsidedown- these cards still count.
You're attacking a strawman there. I don't pretend to come up with a single best idea for what should be the relevant limited land ability in 10 seconds of posting. I probably could go into depth and figure out a relevant little minor perk that would balance the lands for limited, but I'm not going to, because nobody is paying me to do it. Thats wizards job, and they didn't do it. Wizards have all the time in the world to send ideas to development, settle on one, and print it.
Bad design is treading water instead of pushing forward. The cards they print in any set don't have to be any more complex than the cards they've printed in the past, but they can't be vanilla. With a cycle like this, they've said they're comfortable with taking 5 uncommon slots out of this set and sets in the future for zero effort limited cycles of lands that are strictly duller, worse and uninteresting, despite filling a role they've done a dozen times in a row with novel mechanics. Thats a lot more damning than just throwing in a smattering of a paltry few reprints- our status quo has been lowered.
That's the ******* point. Do you, or for that matter anyone in this thread, know the first goddamn thing about game design? Because statements like this make me want yell very loudly at you until you shut up and leave. These lands are being used to disincentivize multi-color decks. Yes, they could have easily been duals that enable madness with an ETB discard effect, but this isn't a set that needs extensive multicolor fixing and omnipresent madness enablers, so they weren't those lands. The better a dual is or the more utility it offers, the more it pushes playing multiple colors. If the designers want to pull back on that happening then both of those things (good duals or utility duals) can't be there.
**** no it's not. Bad design is novelty for novelty's sake with no thought to the ramifications or purpose of that novelty. For instance, the Mad-land idea in my response to Lully (dual lands that discard 1 on ETB)? They are only worthwhile to print if multicolor Madness is a primary mechanic of the block, because you'd need more discard outlets. Otherwise they're just worse than these duals. If SOI is not supposed to be a multicolor environment, then printing better duals is more of a waste of a slot than these duals; because then you'd actively be working against your intended end-state.
Like reading through some of these comments physically hurt me.
They are UNCOMMONS for LIMITED PURPOSES. Myself and anyone else foiling out an enemy colored edh deck will likely pick up a foil in their colors, and guess what? They'll never see play anywhere outside of limited or edh, just like 95% of every set printed. There will be a rare land cycle, whether it's battle lands or checklands, and I'm sure people will take offense to either of those being printed as well, and this whole thing will start over again.
But seriously, the complaining about some generic limited mana fixers is REALLY stupid and pointless.
Meh
Modern
BUWEsper ControlWUB
BRUGrixis DelverURB
WRBGKiki ChordGBRW
WBGAbzan MidrangeGBW
BRGJundGRB
Legacy
UBRGrixis DelverRBU
Commander
Also meh