__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
these lands are bad. these are rare? ewwwww

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
Kinda turns you off to buying a box, right?

---

i don't buy boxes anyway. you lose money unless you get them for like 80/ea, and around here that doesn't happen. turns me off from limited though. i almost expect people to leave these lying around with their bad draft commons/uncommons at larger events.

the only way these get played at all is if next years core set AND fall set have worse lands. which is quite frankly unthinkable. i'm perplexed that people at wotc were 'excited' about these. scry 1 on a guildgate should NOT move it from common to rare.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
Kinda turns you off to buying a box, right?

---

Re: random ally/enemy pairings, they will complete the full cycle of ten in the block. http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/263 "the previous year in Standard had extra time with the Return to Ravnica shocklands, and that the Gatecrash color pairs could use some extra time in the spotlight, so that is the model we went with. This left us with five more for the rest of the block. What will the order be for their release? You'll have to wait and see."

Other tidbits from the article. They wanted them to be worse than the shocklands and the fetchlands in terms of enabling 3-color decks "we wanted them to not play so well with the Ravnica dual lands that decks would be three colors by default"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pail42:
Other tidbits from the article. They wanted them to be worse than the shocklands and the fetchlands in terms of enabling 3-color decks "we wanted them to not play so well with the Ravnica dual lands that decks would be three colors by default"

"There was some concerns within development that the scry lands might be too powerful" ... "Now, most decks don't have too many turn-one plays, so the cost of the land coming into play tapped on turn one is very low." tells me they expect a very slow standard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
Well they did a bang-up job on the suck factor, but I fail to see how this limits 3 color decks? Losing Farseek and check lands did that all on its own. What am I missing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
i don't buy boxes anyway. you lose money unless you get them for like 80/ea, and around here that doesn't happen. turns me off from limited though. i almost expect people to leave these lying around with their bad draft commons/uncommons at larger events.

the only way these get played at all is if next years core set AND fall set have worse lands. which is quite frankly unthinkable. i'm perplexed that people at wotc were 'excited' about these. scry 1 on a guildgate should NOT move it from common to rare.

---

You won't leave them around when they're a worth $2 - $5.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
Kinda turns you off to buying a box, right?

---

They aren't strictly worse, but I think overall they are worse. And printed like that they certainly shouldn't be rare.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Weren't we told these would be better than the M10 lands?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WinkyBlitzen:
The entitlement factor kind of tilts me here. Playing 3+ color decks isn't always supposed to be easy. Playing a format where you have trips green, red, and black by turn 5 is like ice cream. Good in moderation, but at a certain point, you get sick.
And to answer your question, what they are saying is that if they printed a cycle at a similar power level in concert with shocks like the checklands then it would not limit the ease and efficiency of constructing 3 color decks.

---

I didn't say it was supposed to be easy, but according to what some guy was quoted in the article for Theros, it was implied that whatever cycle of lands they printed would make playing more than 2 colors more difficult. I don't exactly see how it becomes all that more difficult. I guess it might be slower? Maybe that's what they're aiming for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Hardly. Competitive players will want the optimal land base, and while its hardly a huge jump from a guildgate to a temple, it IS a jump. Besides, the God cycle, the dragon, the merfolk elemental, thoughtseize, lion, etc. all make me confident about picking up a box.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
I didn't say it was supposed to be easy, but according to what some guy was quoted in the article for Theros, it was implied that whatever cycle of lands they printed would make playing more than 2 colors more difficult. I don't exactly see how it becomes all that more difficult. I guess it might be slower? Maybe that's what they're aiming for.

---

"We needed duals that you would be able to run twelve of if you really wanted to force a twenty-four-dual-land mana base like Return to Ravnica Standard, but that would have enough of a downside that it was a well thought-out decision rather than something with little to no opportunity cost.
...
If you want to run a three-color deck, you will run into more situations where you are playing lands tapped when you don't want to, or taking more damage from your shocklands than you did in the previous year. We don't want to keep three-color decks from existing, just make them feel different from the previous year and give a lot of good reasons for deciding to play two colors instead."

quote:

---

Originally posted by chaos021:
I didn't say it was supposed to be easy, but according to what some guy was quoted in the article for Theros, it was implied that whatever cycle of lands they printed would make playing more than 2 colors more difficult. I don't exactly see how it becomes all that more difficult. I guess it might be slower? Maybe that's what they're aiming for.

So how many are you planning on buying?

---

__________________
28th in refs on Motl!

#1 Ref's for Arizona!

I offer 3rd party trading services. Email if interested.