I was semi-kidding in a prior thread about the enemy cycle-lands not being reprinted, but seeing these and not the enemy cycle-lands, I am pretty disappointed. There are literally only two cards in this set that I absolutely want.
Now I patiently await Commander 2017.
Why would you even have expected enemy cycle lands in the first place? Outside of Ravnica, rare lands almost never get full 10-card cycles in the course of a single block.
Why would you even have expected enemy cycle lands in the first place?.
Because for limited play, and flavor and playability surrounding the Amonkhet block, the enemy-colored lands would have been a perfect add here, as well as complimenting the allied-colored versions that came out a set prior.
Outside of Ravnica, rare lands almost never get full 10-card cycles in the course of a single block.
That is a true statement. WOTC did however state during the Khans of Tarkir block that 10-color paired cycles for lands would be completed in sets/blocks, only to change their minds by Dragons of Tarkir in stating that only 10-colored paired lands would be applied to give mana-fixing to every colored pair. That being said though, it doesn't mean that WOTC won't do it however. Chances were low, and my expectations were quashed. Still disappointed in them for acting in such.
Outside of Ravnica, rare lands almost never get full 10-card cycles in the course of a single block.
Seeing as blocks are going the way of the Lhurgoyf, they're probably taking this time to establish large sets as the home of rare duals, while the small Core sets will probably get the Tapland Ten.
And at least 6 months until enemy lands more generally.
Aside from the cycle we just got in Kaladesh. And with Ixalan's debut, BFZ and SOI will rotate out, taking ten ally duals and five enemy duals with them, leaving us with, at minimum, the Ally Cycling Duals and Enemy Fastlands.
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.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
Only the red one impresses me; the blue one feels too weak, and the rest have sorcery clause which kinda ruins the fun. The back one at least works as removal, so not too shabby.
These actually aren't terrible for any mono-colored Commander deck. The life loss is negligible, having access to both uncolored mana and mana of your respective color on an untapped land is a plus, being a desert is actually positive with the new Scavenger Grounds, and the ability while small is always beneficial.
If I was playing a single color commander deck, I definitely wouldn't bother with these, not even for their abilities, which can be found far less conditionally and often at instant speed elsewhere.
These actually aren't terrible for any mono-colored Commander deck. The life loss is negligible, having access to both uncolored mana and mana of your respective color on an untapped land is a plus, being a desert is actually positive with the new Scavenger Grounds, and the ability while small is always beneficial.
If I was playing a single color commander deck, I definitely wouldn't bother with these, not even for their abilities, which can be found far less conditionally and often at instant speed elsewhere.
All of those spells take up a slot I could use for another spell though. Often times these would just take up a slot that would have a basic land in it. I mean, it's not a question of wether or not spells exist that do these things, but rather what is the opportunity cost for playing these cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My List of Current Decks: -Modern- WMartyrProcB BBurnR -Commander-
Why would you even have expected enemy cycle lands in the first place?.
Because for limited play, and flavor and playability surrounding the Amonkhet block, the enemy-colored lands would have been a perfect add here, as well as complimenting the allied-colored versions that came out a set prior.
I guess, but they don't fit thematically at all. All three blocks with full 10 land cycles at rare (excluding core sets and ABUR) had very strong thematic justifications. Ravnica had 10 shocks for 10 guilds. Theros had 10 temples for 10 multicolored gods. Shadowmoor was an explicitly allied color pairs set followed by an explicitly enemy color pairs set, thus requiring all 10 filters for consistency's sake.
Amonkhet isn't a particularly multicolor-heavy set, nor does it have a particular alignment between its duals and anything other than geography. What, specifically, would make its case for why the block would be more deserving of a full cycle than BFZ or SOI?
These actually aren't terrible for any mono-colored Commander deck. The life loss is negligible, having access to both uncolored mana and mana of your respective color on an untapped land is a plus, being a desert is actually positive with the new Scavenger Grounds, and the ability while small is always beneficial.
If I was playing a single color commander deck, I definitely wouldn't bother with these, not even for their abilities, which can be found far less conditionally and often at instant speed elsewhere.
All of those spells take up a slot I could use for another spell though. Often times these would just take up a slot that would have a basic land in it. I mean, it's not a question of wether or not spells exist that do these things, but rather what is the opportunity cost for playing these cards.
I dunno, call me a purist but I don't think I'd cut a basic land for these either. For one thing, they sting you to produce colored mana! I suppose if you're really hard up for an extra anthem (at sorcery speed) or...mill?...then I guess they're all right, but I find them very clunky.
They do, on the other hand, ETB untapped, which is nice, buuuuuuuut since most of their effects take large amounts of mana, their immediate impact is not much.
These actually aren't terrible for any mono-colored Commander deck. The life loss is negligible, having access to both uncolored mana and mana of your respective color on an untapped land is a plus, being a desert is actually positive with the new Scavenger Grounds, and the ability while small is always beneficial.
If I was playing a single color commander deck, I definitely wouldn't bother with these, not even for their abilities, which can be found far less conditionally and often at instant speed elsewhere.
All of those spells take up a slot I could use for another spell though. Often times these would just take up a slot that would have a basic land in it. I mean, it's not a question of wether or not spells exist that do these things, but rather what is the opportunity cost for playing these cards.
I dunno, call me a purist but I don't think I'd cut a basic land for these either. For one thing, they sting you to produce colored mana! I suppose if you're really hard up for an extra anthem (at sorcery speed) or...mill?...then I guess they're all right, but I find them very clunky.
They do, on the other hand, ETB untapped, which is nice, buuuuuuuut since most of their effects take large amounts of mana, their immediate impact is not much.
Honestly, the red one is probably the weakest in Commander, but often times you'll be using them as a basic land. The damage, especially in mono-coloured decks, should only pop up in the first few turns. Like the effects aren't great, but it give you more options in your mana base. The big one being that decks can now run a Desert package a little to no cost to them, consisting of the coloured equivalent of Desert of the True, Scavenger Grounds, and Shefet Dunes. Finally, the big one is it fuels colourless shenanigans without damaging your coloured landbase. The ability to more frequently activate cards like Eldrazi Displacer, Endbringer, and Sea Gate Wreckage can be really handy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My List of Current Decks: -Modern- WMartyrProcB BBurnR -Commander-
Amonkhet isn't a particularly multicolor-heavy set, nor does it have a particular alignment between its duals and anything other than geography. What, specifically, would make its case for why the block would be more deserving of a full cycle than BFZ or SOI?
Same reason as I mentioned before where I'd hope WOTC would retract their previous statement and possibly make the full cycles as to their prior promise and make their customers happy. I am still upset that there were no enemy-colored battlelands, or SOI lands, let alone the enemy-colored fetchlands that were supposed to be in the Khans of Tarkir block.
A cycle is either vertical or horizontal in MTG. As in, vertically up the rarity, or horizontally across the color pie.
A land cycle is usually horizontally and can be 5 or 10 cards. Mono, dual ally, dual enemy, tri, quad.
Take a step back and ask yourself, did they complete a cycle of 5 for a particular group? If yes, then the promise to complete cycles is fulfilled.
Not all Land cycles come in 10. We still haven't got 10 Snow tap-dual.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
Take a step back and ask yourself, did they complete a cycle of 5 for a particular group? If yes, then the promise to complete cycles is fulfilled.
Not all Land cycles come in 10. We still haven't got 10 Snow tap-dual.
That's not even remotely what the "commitment to complete land cycles" was supposed to mean and you know it - the entire point is that they had been releasing partial (aka, ally colors only) cycles of lands for decades, and rarely ever got around to making versions for the enemy color pairs. Claiming that, when they told us they were going to stop making incomplete cycles, what they actually meant was "continue exactly as they always have and change nothing", is absurd.
It's what they still ended up doing of course, but that's not WotC living up to their promise, it's them going back on it.
The entire point is to not do Nimbus Maze again. Yes we want enemy pairs too, but it isn't the requirement.
Not sure what evidence you have to suggest otherwise, but I would love to read it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
The entire point is to not do Nimbus Maze again. Yes we want enemy pairs too, but it isn't the requirement.
Not sure what evidence you have to suggest otherwise, but I would love to read it.
For the life of me I can't find the original article on the Mothership that gave us the impression WotC was moving towards printing complete cycles of lands in blocks (not going back and "finishing" the future sight cycles, that's something that people often request but is emphatically NOT what this is about and never has been, I don't know how you got that impression), but I did turn up this article by Sam Stoddard that refers back to it (aggravatingly without actually linking to it, he just say "when I talked about this last year...") - magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-mana-2014-06-27.
They followed that article up with a complete cycle of new taplands in Khans block, so when the BFZ duals were revealed many players were expecting them to complete the cycle for the enemy color pairs... but they didn't. I'm sure there's some post somewhere on social media where they backtrack such that we arrive back here, where it's business as usual and land cycles might get completed a mere 5 years later (if ever), but before BFZ happened, expecting that stuff like the Temples from Theros, where we got all of them across the course of the block, expecting that cycles like that were what we would see in new blocks as the rule and not an exception, well that wasn't an unreasonable expectation because they literally told us exactly that on the mothership.
Nimbus Maze is an example of a card that could be in a cycle, but there is no cycle. They will never do a one off colored man producing nonbasic land again. That is the promise of completing cycles.
I still question where you heard a full cycle of lands is always 10, 2 ally, 2 enemy. I never recall that being said by wizards. A cycle can be 5, and 5 we usually get.
Theroes appears to me as a multicolor block. It had multicolor majorly important charcter cards, the 15 gods. That pretty much requires doing all 10 2color pairs. Other evidence to note of it being a multicolor block, the first time City Of Brass was functionally reprinted.
You are right that there is a reasonable expectation of getting a cycle of 10 nonbasics that do a thing as the Temples. But when they're pretty generic non-basic duals, with just about 0 support for the need, and are more of just a call back to connect with the previous block's major selling point, well the intent feels odd.
You need to look at each set as it is introduced to Standard to see what land pairs are missing, what are rotating out soon, what the color push is. It is never just about doing it to do it. There is always a purpose to which colors get chosen and when.
And on that, it shouldn't be just ten 2color lands, it should ten 2color, ten 3color, and the five 4color pairings.
25 rare lands, just to appease doing the full cycle, heck why stop there, throw in monocolors and make it the full 30.
When I build a 3 color deck I am so mad that I don't get a triland that can scry, or can fetch for 3 different cards, or can enter untapped. But I find ways around it. City, Mana Confluence, Evolving Wilds is even a plausible solution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
So... you didn't read the article I cited (and are still stuck on the nimble maze tangent), or you would know I glean what the definition of a completed dual land cycle is directly from the articles members of the development team post on the membership. A cycle of lands that generate two different colors of mana is a complete cycle if it has 10 cards, because there are 10 color pairs in the game of Magic (unless it's something like River of Tears, where completing the cycle would take 20 cards because there could be 2 different functional cards per color pair).
You are debating basic semantics to argue that WotC is sticking to their word, but what you are arguing is nonsense because the example you keep returning to was a 1-off exception that, at the time players were told to expect more complete cycles in blocks, was from a set that came out 6 years prior. If they were talking about Nimbus Maze, there would not have been a reason to say anything in the first place: they were already not repeating that scenario, and had been for the better part of a decade.
Releasing 4 to 5 new ally color dual land types for every 1 cycle they complete, usually years later (if ever), for the enemy color pairs has pretty much been the pattern for most of Magic's history, you are arguing that 4 years ago the players were told to expect exactly that going forward, and got excited. That does not make any sense.
Not that they couldn't in the future, but they didn't work for what we were trying to accomplish. I mentioned last year that we were moving more toward printing full cycles of lands in a block to make the mana work for Constructed and for Block Constructed. That isn't changing.
Part of keeping Standard interesting over the long haul is constantly rotating what the dual lands in the environment do.
No where in that article is ten lands as a cycle ever mentioned. Full cycle can be interpreted as 5, which is par for most things. You still have not proven that ten is the full cycle.
If it's all nonsense, why do you even care that they don't make it? You have nearly no way of getting what you want them to make. Play with what you have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
Not that they couldn't in the future, but they didn't work for what we were trying to accomplish. I mentioned last year that we were moving more toward printing full cycles of lands in a block to make the mana work for Constructed and for Block Constructed. That isn't changing.
Part of keeping Standard interesting over the long haul is constantly rotating what the dual lands in the environment do.
No where in that article is ten lands as a cycle ever mentioned. Full cycle can be interpreted as 5, which is par for most things. You still have not proven that ten is the full cycle.
If it's all nonsense, why do you even care that they don't make it? You have nearly no way of getting what you want them to make. Play with what you have.
...Are you for real? For the final time, let's examine why I keep telling you that your assertions are utter nonsense (not the idea of completing land cycles, that's something a great many players want and a constant source of frustration whenever WotC does not): For cards to be considered a cycle, the design must be such that each shares certain mechanical similarities, such that having seen one example the text for other cards in the cycle can be partially/completely guessed at. For a cycle to be complete it must have a representative card for each color combination in the scope of the cycle. If that is a set of 5 mono-color spells, or lands that only produce 1 color of mana, then 5 would be a "complete cycle", because there are 5 colors in Magic. When you add in a second color, you now require 10 cards to comprise a full cycle, because there are 5 colors in Magic.
You are arguing that what Sam Stoddard meant when he said "we are moving more towards printing full cycles of lands in a block" was that WotC intended to release 5 lands in either the ally or enemy color pairs in any given bock, and that whenever they do just that, they are living up to their word. Here is why that is ludicrous - the part of that sentence where the words "we are moving toward" is, cannot possibly be interpreted (by a reasonable person) to mean "continue doing exactly what we always have since Revised", because that makes no sense whatsoever; if the end result is the status quo, there is nothing to move towards. This is the clearest possible repudiation of your argument and the fact you refuse to acknowledge it is maddening. Particularly because every single "incomplete (ie, ally colors only) cycle of lands that produce 2 different colors of mana are not only from the same block, they were printed in the same set. Full stop.
You seem to think that stuff like the Future Sight ally-color duals were not a weird exception (a partial cycle itself comprised of 5 other incomplete cycles), but across the entire history of Magic and its various types of "dual lands", there are only two other sets of those lands that break the standard 5 ally/enemy breakdown: the tainted lands from Torment (a cycle of 4 cards, 1 for every color pair with black in it), and the tribal lands from Lorwyn (a mixture of ally and enemy color dual lands that corresponded to the colors each tribe was in). That's it, a set containing all 5 ally color producing lands and then maybe years and years later the corresponding 5 enemy color producing lands is the long established pattern, so when a Magic developer tells us multiple times that their design philosophy is shifting towards printing full cycles of lands in blocks, there's just no grounds to interpret that statement to conclude "5 lands in just the ally colors is a full cycle" like you have.
That a full cycle of dual lands by definition must contain 10 lands (at least) or be considered incomplete, that's not something I need to prove, it's how numbers work, but I went the extra mile and provided statements from the developers to back up all my points, and the cards themselves support my position - if you continue arguing that WotC has in fact not said one thing and then done the opposite, Sam Stoddard's statements must be pointless and nonsensical for your interpretation to be correct (one does not "move towards" continuing to do the same thing you've already been doing for 20 years). Unless you are seriously going to suggest that his statements are in fact nonsense, the only possible number of lands he could be referring to when he says a "full cycle", in the context of dual lands, is 10.
Telling me to "play with what I have" is both patronizing and completely besides the point.
To be frank, Nimbus Maze was probably an alternative take on the original tainted lands. Basically, it's Tainted Isle except it requires two lands to fully get access to the colors it produces and really isn't even that good of a land on it's own. It does pair okay with other lands that have basic land types, but in those situations the tainted lands win out even though they only work with swamps. I think the tainted lands were a great idea and if they wanted to do a brand new land cycle in the spirit of those lands, they could make a cycle that checks for either basic land to be in play to be able to use the second mana generation ability.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Nimbus Maze actually is part of a cycle, purposefully different ally-colored duals from 5 different possible futures.
There was a point in time where it was stated enemy-color duals would be included in cycles more often, but that obviously hasn't happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know he thinks I'm impressed by a 102 MPH fastball in the 9th inning... Ok, I'm impressed, but that doesn't mean I can't crush it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why would you even have expected enemy cycle lands in the first place? Outside of Ravnica, rare lands almost never get full 10-card cycles in the course of a single block.
the black one is going right into my hapatra edh build
And at least 6 months until enemy lands more generally.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Because for limited play, and flavor and playability surrounding the Amonkhet block, the enemy-colored lands would have been a perfect add here, as well as complimenting the allied-colored versions that came out a set prior.
That is a true statement. WOTC did however state during the Khans of Tarkir block that 10-color paired cycles for lands would be completed in sets/blocks, only to change their minds by Dragons of Tarkir in stating that only 10-colored paired lands would be applied to give mana-fixing to every colored pair. That being said though, it doesn't mean that WOTC won't do it however. Chances were low, and my expectations were quashed. Still disappointed in them for acting in such.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
Seeing as blocks are going the way of the Lhurgoyf, they're probably taking this time to establish large sets as the home of rare duals, while the small Core sets will probably get the Tapland Ten.
Aside from the cycle we just got in Kaladesh. And with Ixalan's debut, BFZ and SOI will rotate out, taking ten ally duals and five enemy duals with them, leaving us with, at minimum, the Ally Cycling Duals and Enemy Fastlands.
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.
If I was playing a single color commander deck, I definitely wouldn't bother with these, not even for their abilities, which can be found far less conditionally and often at instant speed elsewhere.
White: Break of Day, Glorious Charge
Blue: Dampen Thought, Memory Sluice (admittedly a sorcery but far cheaper), Vision Charm
Red: Sulfurous Blast
Green: Giant Growth
All of those spells take up a slot I could use for another spell though. Often times these would just take up a slot that would have a basic land in it. I mean, it's not a question of wether or not spells exist that do these things, but rather what is the opportunity cost for playing these cards.
-Modern-
WMartyrProcB
BBurnR
-Commander-
I guess, but they don't fit thematically at all. All three blocks with full 10 land cycles at rare (excluding core sets and ABUR) had very strong thematic justifications. Ravnica had 10 shocks for 10 guilds. Theros had 10 temples for 10 multicolored gods. Shadowmoor was an explicitly allied color pairs set followed by an explicitly enemy color pairs set, thus requiring all 10 filters for consistency's sake.
Amonkhet isn't a particularly multicolor-heavy set, nor does it have a particular alignment between its duals and anything other than geography. What, specifically, would make its case for why the block would be more deserving of a full cycle than BFZ or SOI?
I dunno, call me a purist but I don't think I'd cut a basic land for these either. For one thing, they sting you to produce colored mana! I suppose if you're really hard up for an extra anthem (at sorcery speed) or...mill?...then I guess they're all right, but I find them very clunky.
They do, on the other hand, ETB untapped, which is nice, buuuuuuuut since most of their effects take large amounts of mana, their immediate impact is not much.
Honestly, the red one is probably the weakest in Commander, but often times you'll be using them as a basic land. The damage, especially in mono-coloured decks, should only pop up in the first few turns. Like the effects aren't great, but it give you more options in your mana base. The big one being that decks can now run a Desert package a little to no cost to them, consisting of the coloured equivalent of Desert of the True, Scavenger Grounds, and Shefet Dunes. Finally, the big one is it fuels colourless shenanigans without damaging your coloured landbase. The ability to more frequently activate cards like Eldrazi Displacer, Endbringer, and Sea Gate Wreckage can be really handy.
-Modern-
WMartyrProcB
BBurnR
-Commander-
Same reason as I mentioned before where I'd hope WOTC would retract their previous statement and possibly make the full cycles as to their prior promise and make their customers happy. I am still upset that there were no enemy-colored battlelands, or SOI lands, let alone the enemy-colored fetchlands that were supposed to be in the Khans of Tarkir block.
A land cycle is usually horizontally and can be 5 or 10 cards. Mono, dual ally, dual enemy, tri, quad.
Take a step back and ask yourself, did they complete a cycle of 5 for a particular group? If yes, then the promise to complete cycles is fulfilled.
Not all Land cycles come in 10. We still haven't got 10 Snow tap-dual.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
It's what they still ended up doing of course, but that's not WotC living up to their promise, it's them going back on it.
Not sure what evidence you have to suggest otherwise, but I would love to read it.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
They followed that article up with a complete cycle of new taplands in Khans block, so when the BFZ duals were revealed many players were expecting them to complete the cycle for the enemy color pairs... but they didn't. I'm sure there's some post somewhere on social media where they backtrack such that we arrive back here, where it's business as usual and land cycles might get completed a mere 5 years later (if ever), but before BFZ happened, expecting that stuff like the Temples from Theros, where we got all of them across the course of the block, expecting that cycles like that were what we would see in new blocks as the rule and not an exception, well that wasn't an unreasonable expectation because they literally told us exactly that on the mothership.
Nimbus Maze is an example of a card that could be in a cycle, but there is no cycle. They will never do a one off colored man producing nonbasic land again. That is the promise of completing cycles.
I still question where you heard a full cycle of lands is always 10, 2 ally, 2 enemy. I never recall that being said by wizards. A cycle can be 5, and 5 we usually get.
Theroes appears to me as a multicolor block. It had multicolor majorly important charcter cards, the 15 gods. That pretty much requires doing all 10 2color pairs. Other evidence to note of it being a multicolor block, the first time City Of Brass was functionally reprinted.
You are right that there is a reasonable expectation of getting a cycle of 10 nonbasics that do a thing as the Temples. But when they're pretty generic non-basic duals, with just about 0 support for the need, and are more of just a call back to connect with the previous block's major selling point, well the intent feels odd.
You need to look at each set as it is introduced to Standard to see what land pairs are missing, what are rotating out soon, what the color push is. It is never just about doing it to do it. There is always a purpose to which colors get chosen and when.
And on that, it shouldn't be just ten 2color lands, it should ten 2color, ten 3color, and the five 4color pairings.
25 rare lands, just to appease doing the full cycle, heck why stop there, throw in monocolors and make it the full 30.
When I build a 3 color deck I am so mad that I don't get a triland that can scry, or can fetch for 3 different cards, or can enter untapped. But I find ways around it. City, Mana Confluence, Evolving Wilds is even a plausible solution.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
You are debating basic semantics to argue that WotC is sticking to their word, but what you are arguing is nonsense because the example you keep returning to was a 1-off exception that, at the time players were told to expect more complete cycles in blocks, was from a set that came out 6 years prior. If they were talking about Nimbus Maze, there would not have been a reason to say anything in the first place: they were already not repeating that scenario, and had been for the better part of a decade.
Releasing 4 to 5 new ally color dual land types for every 1 cycle they complete, usually years later (if ever), for the enemy color pairs has pretty much been the pattern for most of Magic's history, you are arguing that 4 years ago the players were told to expect exactly that going forward, and got excited. That does not make any sense.
No where in that article is ten lands as a cycle ever mentioned. Full cycle can be interpreted as 5, which is par for most things. You still have not proven that ten is the full cycle.
If it's all nonsense, why do you even care that they don't make it? You have nearly no way of getting what you want them to make. Play with what you have.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
...Are you for real? For the final time, let's examine why I keep telling you that your assertions are utter nonsense (not the idea of completing land cycles, that's something a great many players want and a constant source of frustration whenever WotC does not): For cards to be considered a cycle, the design must be such that each shares certain mechanical similarities, such that having seen one example the text for other cards in the cycle can be partially/completely guessed at. For a cycle to be complete it must have a representative card for each color combination in the scope of the cycle. If that is a set of 5 mono-color spells, or lands that only produce 1 color of mana, then 5 would be a "complete cycle", because there are 5 colors in Magic. When you add in a second color, you now require 10 cards to comprise a full cycle, because there are 5 colors in Magic.
You are arguing that what Sam Stoddard meant when he said "we are moving more towards printing full cycles of lands in a block" was that WotC intended to release 5 lands in either the ally or enemy color pairs in any given bock, and that whenever they do just that, they are living up to their word. Here is why that is ludicrous - the part of that sentence where the words "we are moving toward" is, cannot possibly be interpreted (by a reasonable person) to mean "continue doing exactly what we always have since Revised", because that makes no sense whatsoever; if the end result is the status quo, there is nothing to move towards. This is the clearest possible repudiation of your argument and the fact you refuse to acknowledge it is maddening. Particularly because every single "incomplete (ie, ally colors only) cycle of lands that produce 2 different colors of mana are not only from the same block, they were printed in the same set. Full stop.
You seem to think that stuff like the Future Sight ally-color duals were not a weird exception (a partial cycle itself comprised of 5 other incomplete cycles), but across the entire history of Magic and its various types of "dual lands", there are only two other sets of those lands that break the standard 5 ally/enemy breakdown: the tainted lands from Torment (a cycle of 4 cards, 1 for every color pair with black in it), and the tribal lands from Lorwyn (a mixture of ally and enemy color dual lands that corresponded to the colors each tribe was in). That's it, a set containing all 5 ally color producing lands and then maybe years and years later the corresponding 5 enemy color producing lands is the long established pattern, so when a Magic developer tells us multiple times that their design philosophy is shifting towards printing full cycles of lands in blocks, there's just no grounds to interpret that statement to conclude "5 lands in just the ally colors is a full cycle" like you have.
That a full cycle of dual lands by definition must contain 10 lands (at least) or be considered incomplete, that's not something I need to prove, it's how numbers work, but I went the extra mile and provided statements from the developers to back up all my points, and the cards themselves support my position - if you continue arguing that WotC has in fact not said one thing and then done the opposite, Sam Stoddard's statements must be pointless and nonsensical for your interpretation to be correct (one does not "move towards" continuing to do the same thing you've already been doing for 20 years). Unless you are seriously going to suggest that his statements are in fact nonsense, the only possible number of lands he could be referring to when he says a "full cycle", in the context of dual lands, is 10.
Telling me to "play with what I have" is both patronizing and completely besides the point.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
There was a point in time where it was stated enemy-color duals would be included in cycles more often, but that obviously hasn't happened.