Given the wide spread of available gold cards between Bloodbraid Elf and Deathrite Shaman, with the focus on Legacy, it feels right to insert Crystalline Sliver in here. Given that, what do you feel about the possibility of us seeing hand full of good and older slivers? If so, which ones would you expect to see?
Muscle Sliver, Heart Sliver, Quick Sliver, Talon Sliver, Winged Sliver, Sliver Overlord, and perhaps Sliver Queen are my wagers.
From the numbers of the three spoiled expeditions, we see that 26-35 are reserved for the filter lands. So.. what about 36 - 45? I considered staple lands from both Legacy and modern, maintaining a focus on playability / demand and came up with this quick list of possibilities / wants. What are your thoughts?
36 Ancient Tomb
37 ? blinkmoth nexus
38 ? dark depths
39 Forbidden Orchard
40 ? grove of the burn willows
41 ? horizon canopy
42 ? inkmoth nexus
43 ? karakas
44 ? rishadan port
45 ? wasteland
Maybe?
cavern of souls
mutavault
mishra's factory
gemstone mine
maze of ith
I don't think it's colorless, otherwise we cannot explain the casting cost of Kozilek, the Great Distortion.
Maybe <> it's a specific type of colorless, but 1 is not exchangable with that.
IMHO, it does address the casting cost. Two mana MUST be colorless, the other eight can be anything. =) No different than 8RR, where you specifically need two Red and then the other eight can be anything.
If the understanding that mana from basic wastes are colorless, and costs which require the waste type are also strictly colorless mana, then painlands have found an a single instance of relevance where they are better than shocklands. Really, this is quite interesting for build implications when transiting these cards to modern and legacy metas.
I'm guessing it will be two full cycles. There are currently 11 full multicolor land cycles, and two that can be reasonably expected to be finished in Sweat - the new duals, and the Zendikar manlands. of those 13, I eliminate fetches, shocks, and new duals (already in); Alpha duals (reserved list); pains & karoos (plane specific names); and checks, gates, refuges & taptrips (underwhelming). This leaves manlands, filters or temples. I think the temple flavor is a little off, even if the names are generic.
So, filters and manlands (5 of which are new in Sweat)
Temples are also underwhelming, in addition to being off-flavor. I do feel like this dual cycle is likely to be completed, but if we get enemy BFZ duals (can we call them double-checklands?) and a full 10 manlands, I'm not seeing a fitting 5 card cycle to round it out.
Someone did suggest the Future Sight lands, but that's an odd cycle, which varies from 'OMGOMGOMG' (Canopy and Grove) to 'Huh?' (River of Tears), and awkwardly features a single member of a later cycle (Graven Cairns).
Maybe it's not a cycle at all, or at least not something printed as such? But what valuable, color-balanced set of 5 lands would make sense?
Finish the horizon canopy, or grove of the Burnwillows cycle, declare them modern legal and never actually print the cards in a normal set so they can be worth thousands for the lucky few that pull one and a source of endless rage for everyone else.
Completing the Horizon canopy cycle would have been much more welcome than what we got.
That is all true, but the same argument can be applied to the other 5 fetchalnds. I am sure we will get the other 5 laglands, just not right now - they are not needed for standard (the main focus of WOTC in terms of formats), but the names of the first 5 are generic enough that they or the other 5 can be printed in any set.
Blocks might give an ounce of design consideration in regards to standard in terms of balancing things out; however, they are ultimately designed with themselves as the principle focus. MaRo, it seems, recently posted an article about having complete land-cycles. It would be inconsistent with his rational to put out a set of new cards which didn't do this; we'll see the cycle completed in the up-coming set, as well as the completion of the enemy-aligned man-lands. =)
4 cycles and 5 open cards? where did you get that? did I miss an announcement? because last I checked, we had 2 cycles (shocks and fetches), with 20 left
45 Expeditions is the correct number.
At present we have 10 shocks, 10 fetches, and 5/10 laglands. It's anticipated that the other 5 lag lands as well as all 10 Zendikar man-lands will fill out the 15 of the next 20 - leaving a gap of five.
From the pool of 45 expeditions, we have four complete cycles and five open cards. It felt as if they could be set for a non-cycle, such as doing five unique lands that might benefit legacy players - or perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part.
Given the new waste themes, it has me to wonder again - is there potential for wastelands to become a expedition? From what little we know about the <> type of mana, which might be a strictly colorless requirement, it would fit both themes well and would help to set precedent in a sort-of-errata to colorless producing staples.
Thoughts? Might we see Wastelands as one of the five potentially non-cycled expeditions?
I'm pretty sure the goal here is create a way to differentiate between colorless mana and generic mana.
I was thinking the same thing as well. Perhaps <> is strictly colorless mana, where as (1) can be any mana. It doesn't necessitate a sixth color, but it gives items which produce colorless a bit more value and intrigue.
A = probability Atheism is Correct (all Theisms are wrong) = f(x) where f is a function of our current knowledge concerning the existence of a Deity
A = A regardless of whether an you are a Theist or an Atheist.
Except that to one degree or another, everyone is an Atheist. Christians are atheistic of Odin, Muslims are atheistic of Ra, and Pagans are atheistic of Yahweh in any of His flavours; brand name Atheists(tm) simply go one god further than the rest.
Ummm, are you just making up the definitions as you go along? Cause TBH thats what it seems like.
a·the·ist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
I'm a stickler for the correct usage of words, not what I (or others) -want- them to mean. =)
Sorry, way too much to quote, but also consider this outcome.
Perhaps there is a god, which isn't the god that you believe in. Each and every time you pray to not-HIM, he gets more and more angry at you. If he's a jealous and pernicious god, such as described in the Pentitude, then things aren't looking good for you.
A = probability Atheism is Correct (all Theisms are wrong) = f(x) where f is a function of our current knowledge concerning the existence of a Deity
A = A regardless of whether an you are a Theist or an Atheist.
Except that to one degree or another, everyone is an Atheist. Christians are atheistic of Odin, Muslims are atheistic of Ra, and Pagans are atheistic of Yahweh in any of His flavours; brand name Atheists(tm) simply go one god further than the rest.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I, being a Christian (Mormon), may be A-Judaism, A-Muslim, etc. (perhaps even A-Atheist), But by the definition I use Theist and Atheist are mutually exclusive terms. By the definition I am accustomed to and use in my argument, a Theist believe in a theology, where as an Atheist believes in no theology.
I understand that's how you wish to define yourself; however, it's semantically wrong. If you believe that Christ is god but lack belief in Odin, you're an atheist of Odin. This is strictly an issue of the correct usage of terms, no value and/or judgement is attached to that. Atheism (broken record sound) is the lack of _belief_. Nothing less and nothing more. Humans aren't born with the belief in a theistic god, therefore all infants are atheists - they lack belief.
But Mormon, eh? That's my favourite flavour of Christianity!
Deism is like, "I believe that there is a god - but I cannot experience, describe, or know it."
That is completely contrary to what deism believes.
de·ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
If the deistic god doesn't intervene in the universe, we're strictly unable to experience, describe, or know it. Only by interactions, such as showing its presence, talking to us, revelation, etc. can people assert that they know god. In that gesture, the god is intervening thus becomes a knowable entity - a theistic god.
Muscle Sliver, Heart Sliver, Quick Sliver, Talon Sliver, Winged Sliver, Sliver Overlord, and perhaps Sliver Queen are my wagers.
36 Ancient Tomb
37 ? blinkmoth nexus
38 ? dark depths
39 Forbidden Orchard
40 ? grove of the burn willows
41 ? horizon canopy
42 ? inkmoth nexus
43 ? karakas
44 ? rishadan port
45 ? wasteland
Maybe?
cavern of souls
mutavault
mishra's factory
gemstone mine
maze of ith
IMHO, it does address the casting cost. Two mana MUST be colorless, the other eight can be anything. =) No different than 8RR, where you specifically need two Red and then the other eight can be anything.
Or Lag lands.
Completing the Horizon canopy cycle would have been much more welcome than what we got.
Blocks might give an ounce of design consideration in regards to standard in terms of balancing things out; however, they are ultimately designed with themselves as the principle focus. MaRo, it seems, recently posted an article about having complete land-cycles. It would be inconsistent with his rational to put out a set of new cards which didn't do this; we'll see the cycle completed in the up-coming set, as well as the completion of the enemy-aligned man-lands. =)
45 Expeditions is the correct number.
At present we have 10 shocks, 10 fetches, and 5/10 laglands. It's anticipated that the other 5 lag lands as well as all 10 Zendikar man-lands will fill out the 15 of the next 20 - leaving a gap of five.
Thanks,
Given the new waste themes, it has me to wonder again - is there potential for wastelands to become a expedition? From what little we know about the <> type of mana, which might be a strictly colorless requirement, it would fit both themes well and would help to set precedent in a sort-of-errata to colorless producing staples.
Thoughts? Might we see Wastelands as one of the five potentially non-cycled expeditions?
I was thinking the same thing as well. Perhaps <> is strictly colorless mana, where as (1) can be any mana. It doesn't necessitate a sixth color, but it gives items which produce colorless a bit more value and intrigue.
a·the·ist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
I'm a stickler for the correct usage of words, not what I (or others) -want- them to mean. =)
Sorry, way too much to quote, but also consider this outcome.
Perhaps there is a god, which isn't the god that you believe in. Each and every time you pray to not-HIM, he gets more and more angry at you. If he's a jealous and pernicious god, such as described in the Pentitude, then things aren't looking good for you.
I understand that's how you wish to define yourself; however, it's semantically wrong. If you believe that Christ is god but lack belief in Odin, you're an atheist of Odin. This is strictly an issue of the correct usage of terms, no value and/or judgement is attached to that. Atheism (broken record sound) is the lack of _belief_. Nothing less and nothing more. Humans aren't born with the belief in a theistic god, therefore all infants are atheists - they lack belief.
But Mormon, eh? That's my favourite flavour of Christianity!
de·ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
If the deistic god doesn't intervene in the universe, we're strictly unable to experience, describe, or know it. Only by interactions, such as showing its presence, talking to us, revelation, etc. can people assert that they know god. In that gesture, the god is intervening thus becomes a knowable entity - a theistic god.