The kithken need a two mana land to make having a W/g kithken deck more playable.
Most people might not even have w in a merfolk deck because there isn't very much white cards in Lorywn that would make white in a merfolk deck advantageous ( This is coming from someone who likes u/w and likes merfolk. PLEASE let there be white cards in Lorywn that will make a u/w merfolk deck not very crazy. ).
What?
You have no choice but to splash for the UW legend at the very least, if you want to have a halfway decent build.
I'm with the people saying they're uncomfortable with the assymetry. *shiver* I find myself squirming a little at the thought that some of my decks aren't going to get these cool new additions. I have a really sweet UG deck that would love a tapland. Maybe later in the block?
It seems R_E, Hydro, and IM aren't... 'synchronized'? perhaps... Hydro seems confident in IM's confirmation of R/W giant land, yet R_E isn't?
I don't have any inside info, and never again will, so my pondering was based on what I've read on mtg.com only. As I said. And when I made my post, I hadn't read IM's post yet, because it was made while I was making mine. Even if I had, that's not an official source of information, and I can't really speculate on if it's real or not. I'll let you make your own determination there. Know what I mean? :):thumbsup:
I figure they only did lands which have and will continue to have tribes through-out the rest of MTG. a Kithkin land to me doesnt really fit the bill (well either does giant but it sounds more reasonable)
In a funny way, the lack of symmetry doesn't bother me because the cards themselves are inherently asymmetrical already. As someone already said, we won't see half these tribes ever again, and several of them probably won't be seen in one of the colors after this block.
This is the only time we're likely to see this particular condition for dual lands to come into play untapped, and the UB creature type is faeries, FFS! FAERIES!
I know the goblin one will see serious play in older formats, but the rest of them will quite obviously rot in obscurity once Lorwyn rotates out of standard.
And btw, I only play casual and kinda like the tribal theme, but I just absolutely hate how these lands key off of a single, arbitrary creature type. So terribly inelegant.
I also believe Kithkin (besides Elementals and Treefolk) will be the race excluded from the racelands.
As the article states FS already gave them a land which can produce G or W on the first turn. Therefore, it would seem unnecessary to give them another land that can do this and in the process giving them more of an edge against the other aggro tribes.
There will be 6 tribe lands: Merrow, Kithkin, Elves, Boggarts, Giants, and Faeries. It's pretty obvious why: These are the 6 two color tribes. The other two tribes are 5 color and 3 color, which would be much harder to get the lands to be fair for. The article is also titled "Revenge of the Two-Color Weenies."
It won't.
However, Wizards like to push WW a little more, so they enable a good splash. I don't see the point of not giving them a tribeland. It would weaken them in the block and I don't see why Wizards would do such a thing.
On the Merfolk... Don't you want to play Ajani in a Merfolk deck : both +1/+1 counters and vigilance seems to fit Merflok like a glove
Canopy has been more than Temple Garden on MTGO for a while now, but MTGO is weird like that.
no. There won't be those lands, sry, they don't fit into the number crunch. In fact, as i have stated on the number crunch, there is only enough room to do five of the above mentioned dual lands. those are W/U for merfolk, U/B for faeries, B/R for goblins, B/G elves, and R/W for gaints. Kithkin won't get a daul land because they only slightly dip into green.
Although I can see you reasoning, given everything I've read in the book it's going to be boggarts since they are described nomadic while kithkin have villages and such. Also this set is very flavorful, thats the whole reason they is for flavor and to enable tribes ,and let's face it a G/W land will do that more than a B/R one. That's because 2 tribes use G/W and only one uses B/R. Also the book sort of explains the lack of lands for elementals and treefolk in a similar fashion.
Although I can see you reasoning, given everything I've read in the book it's going to be boggarts since they are described nomadic while kithkin have villages and such. Also this set is very flavorful, thats the whole reason they is for flavor and to enable tribes ,and let's face it a G/W land will do that more than a B/R one. That's because 2 tribes use G/W and only one uses B/R. Also the book sort of explains the lack of lands for elementals and treefolk in a similar fashion.
I'm pretty sure Hydro mentioned a few days ago that the one land he knew about was Kithkin G/W. As mentioned before, it makes sense, seeing as how the article is saying the lands were made for efficiency in weenie two-color decks, that all the two color tribes except Giants would get a land.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tournament Victories:
Indianapolis Regionals 2009 (Standard)
Worldwake Gameday (Limited)
I'm pretty sure Hydro mentioned a few days ago that the one land he knew about was Kithkin G/W. As mentioned before, it makes sense, seeing as how the article is saying the lands were made for efficiency in weenie two-color decks, that all the two color tribes except Giants would get a land.
IM here has said we get a giant land though so we will:
IM has also confirmed that artifacts go to at least #265, so that leaves 16 land slots, since the set is 301 cards and the last 20 go to basic lands.
5 Vivid Lands, 5 Hideaway Land, 5 Tribal Lands and the common Shimmering Grotto.
We already know the Faerie and Elf land, IM says there is a giant and a merrow, so that leaves us with kithkin and goblin. I also believe kithkin will miss out.
From the article, we can consider that: WU, BG, UB, GW, BR make sense (the aggro tribes that need/would care for a mana of any color turns 1-2. Giants don't have a tribal one drop, and the only two drop will probably be Jotun Grunt. This means that the RW land could be played turn 1 without untapping just fine, and that's not the point with these lands).
From Imp's Mischief's info, we can consider that: WU, BG, UB, BR, RW make sense (Kithkin don't get one, and they're mostly White anyway).
From the suggested W/B symmetry, we can consider that: WU, BG, UB, RW make sense. White plus an ally and an enemy, Black plus an ally and an enemy, 2 allied and 2 enemy lands in the end.
From pure logic, we can consider that: WU, BG, UB, BR, RW, GW make sense. They are all the color-pair tribes, after all.
From power level issues, we can consider that: WU, BG, UB, RW, GW make sense, because ''Goblins don't need it'' or ''would be too good with it''.
From all of this ^ we can consider that:
Nothing makes any effing sense. Go figure
All I can say is that I certainly hope the other color pairs get their shot in the next set/block. If Jelly is really an "evil" Lowryn... I'm seeing this as being pretty much happening there with B/W... It's my favorite color combo and I certainly am crossing my fingers!
I'm the king of the mars, and you must pay me moon tax for looking at it. Ollie ollie oxenfrie, it's four-thirty in the morning and no one is going to read this post because it's so long. In addition, I prefer marmalde to jam in my boots, due to the interesting texture.
As much as I'd like it to be 6 lands - meaning lands for the 3 white aligned two color tribes and the 3 black aligned two color tribes - I'd have to agree with your educated guess that it's four.
In fact, you made so much sense that I'm starting to want marmalade between my toes as well.
Buh, I'm too lazy to read through the earlier posts, so this has probably been said before. I reckon that we'll get color combinations over the course of the 4 Lorwyn sets (or 2 subsets, whatever).
Too bad these new tribal duals only count as lands and not a forest and a swamp (for this example). So you can't search for em with various stuff. It makes me sad.
An explanation of WHY Lorwyn is disappointing you would help remarks like this make more sense. Unless you are against the theme/flavor, which is understandable (it is a take from the norm), I hate people complaining about the quality/quantity of certain colors when only half of the set is revealed. -_- This card is not complete "jank"- first of all, it's an enemy color tapland, something that some colors might want for the upcoming format regardless of whether they play elves. (A U/R deck would certainly enjoy mroe mana fixing outside of Reefs).
The fact that this will often drop as a painless painland will make it just powerful enough to be used a lot, but not stupidly powerful to warp the format. I think it's a clever way to design niche card.
It's odd, I can see printing the G/B land, since G/B doesn't have any other way to make mana except pains (unlike the 5 FS lands, which give those color combinations more options). But seeing as the faerie one got spoiled... that's 2 lands with B. Maybe they are going to favor B with the lands, like they did with the Tainted lands? This is confusing- 8 tribes and not 8 lands.. =\ Well, I'm trying for Faeries, so I know I'm set (4 FS lands, 4 pains, 4 reveal lands..). And yes, Christopher Moeller is the bomb (he's actually very similar to Kev Walker in his approach to art. Maybe it's because they both work in the same medium, and have very similar tastes/jobs outside of magic) Copper-Leaf Angel is still one of my favorite cards, mostly due to that sweet pic. =)
Lorwyn is disappointing because:
It forces a theme (tribal) too hard, and leaves no realistic alternative for players not big on being forced to play a particular tribe.
Only aggro and aggro-control races are represented, which will lead to a heavily skewed metagame, especially in block. Where are dragons, vampires, demons, angels, etc.?
The art is underwhelming, IMO.
It's a near-blatant rip off of another property (LotR).
The tribeduals are jank outside of tribal decks. Taplands with no way to come into play untapped will always be jank unless the meta slows to a crawl, and the upcoming meta looks to be going in quite the opposite direction.
Personally, I have no respect for straight aggro strategies. They generally require very little skill to pilot, and result in either a quick win or a total scoop, which takes a lot of interaction out of the game. I can live with a few aggro decks floating around here or there, but to force nearly the entire game (especially block) in one direction is a poor strategy.
Only aggro and aggro-control races are represented, which will lead to a heavily skewed metagame, especially in block. Where are dragons, vampires, demons, angels, etc.?
Those are the marquee types. Creatures are given an automatic "bonus" for having those types, and as a result (and to keep them cool and special) they aren't used frequently. Even Scourge, which sort of had a Dragon tribal theme, only had four dragons in it.
It's true that Lorwyn itself focuses heavily on aggro strategies to the exception of combo and control, but you have to remember to take it in the context of the two-block design. Jelly is going to "play well" with Lorwyn, but have a completely different theme -- and almost any of the themes (graveyard, enchantments, etc.) that have been thrown around for it would support combo and control more heavily than aggro.
It's a near-blatant rip off of another property (LotR).
It's really not. Both have the same basic, public-domain source material (Celtic mythology and lore) and so share many similarities, but the details are quite different. LotR featured humans more prominently than any other race, didn't have merfolk or faeries or giants at all, had elves who were wise and intellectual instead of xenophobic and vain, etc.
Only aggro and aggro-control races are represented, which will lead to a heavily skewed metagame, especially in block. Where are dragons, vampires, demons, angels, etc.?
Those creatures do not fit the theme. Also, don't we have enough of them? Let some other creature types take centerstage for a while. Of course, I wish goblins had sat this one out, too, but that's balanced by the return of merfolk and that treefolk and faeries are finally getting support.
I think that merfolk are going to be more controlly than we expect. Also, RW giants might be a strong control force. It's hard to say now with so many cards left to spoil.
Those creatures do not fit the theme. Also, don't we have enough of them? Let some other creature types take centerstage for a while. Of course, I wish goblins had sat this one out, too, but that's balanced by the return of merfolk and that treefolk and faeries are finally getting support.
I think that merfolk are going to be more controlly than we expect. Also, RW giants might be a strong control force. It's hard to say now with so many cards left to spoil.
Cheers,
rant
Like you just said, the same thing could be said for Goblins, which are way overrepresented already. Elves aren't far off, either.
Again, there's no balance. It's aggro, aggro-control, or suffer.
And Giants = control? Since when? Just because they're slow doesn't make them control-oriented.
I'm with the people saying they're uncomfortable with the assymetry. *shiver* I find myself squirming a little at the thought that some of my decks aren't going to get these cool new additions.
It's funny, but I think the asymmetry is a brilliant twist. I mean, it makes me uncomfortable too...you should either have 10 duals or 5 allied or 5 enemy. Logic demands it!
But in breaking free of the tyranny of symmetry, R&D opens up so much more design space. How were they going to top Rav block's 2-color pairings? The set was incredible, but it left little to do if you had to stay within the 10, 5 or 5 structure that we've all been working under for a while now.
I think its good that they try situating the tribes in their colors by flavor and then determining what resources (land, artifacts, etc) they might need from there. It's a fresh new take on design. Next set R&D may use an entirely different organizational scheme. And if this set has "random" parts of MTG, and other sets have "random" parts of MTG, I can see how they would fit together and overlap in new and interesting ways.
Well now, there could be one made for treefolk. OF course, there's no way they'll make one for the elementals, but as for treefolk, since treefolk are more concentrated at higher cmc's, it might be arguable that they can't make as good use of the land as the other tribes, so 3 colors is acceptable for them. Of course, I guess really I'm hoping they'll have a land to make Doran more viable.
What?
You have no choice but to splash for the UW legend at the very least, if you want to have a halfway decent build.
* rancored_elf crosses his fingers *
I don't have any inside info, and never again will, so my pondering was based on what I've read on mtg.com only. As I said.
This is the only time we're likely to see this particular condition for dual lands to come into play untapped, and the UB creature type is faeries, FFS! FAERIES!
I know the goblin one will see serious play in older formats, but the rest of them will quite obviously rot in obscurity once Lorwyn rotates out of standard.
And btw, I only play casual and kinda like the tribal theme, but I just absolutely hate how these lands key off of a single, arbitrary creature type. So terribly inelegant.
As the article states FS already gave them a land which can produce G or W on the first turn. Therefore, it would seem unnecessary to give them another land that can do this and in the process giving them more of an edge against the other aggro tribes.
Watch Horizon Canopy become even more important! It might just surpass Temple Garden in value!
Canopy has been more than Temple Garden on MTGO for a while now, but MTGO is weird like that.
Although I can see you reasoning, given everything I've read in the book it's going to be boggarts since they are described nomadic while kithkin have villages and such. Also this set is very flavorful, thats the whole reason they is for flavor and to enable tribes ,and let's face it a G/W land will do that more than a B/R one. That's because 2 tribes use G/W and only one uses B/R. Also the book sort of explains the lack of lands for elementals and treefolk in a similar fashion.
W
U
B
R
G
I'm pretty sure Hydro mentioned a few days ago that the one land he knew about was Kithkin G/W. As mentioned before, it makes sense, seeing as how the article is saying the lands were made for efficiency in weenie two-color decks, that all the two color tribes except Giants would get a land.
Indianapolis Regionals 2009 (Standard)
Worldwake Gameday (Limited)
See my alters here: http://s132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/jimmy2do/Cards/
IM here has said we get a giant land though so we will:
W
U
B
R
G
5 Vivid Lands, 5 Hideaway Land, 5 Tribal Lands and the common Shimmering Grotto.
We already know the Faerie and Elf land, IM says there is a giant and a merrow, so that leaves us with kithkin and goblin. I also believe kithkin will miss out.
WU, BG, UB, GW, BR make sense (the aggro tribes that need/would care for a mana of any color turns 1-2. Giants don't have a tribal one drop, and the only two drop will probably be Jotun Grunt. This means that the RW land could be played turn 1 without untapping just fine, and that's not the point with these lands).
From Imp's Mischief's info, we can consider that:
WU, BG, UB, BR, RW make sense (Kithkin don't get one, and they're mostly White anyway).
From the suggested W/B symmetry, we can consider that:
WU, BG, UB, RW make sense. White plus an ally and an enemy, Black plus an ally and an enemy, 2 allied and 2 enemy lands in the end.
From pure logic, we can consider that:
WU, BG, UB, BR, RW, GW make sense. They are all the color-pair tribes, after all.
From power level issues, we can consider that:
WU, BG, UB, RW, GW make sense, because ''Goblins don't need it'' or ''would be too good with it''.
From all of this ^ we can consider that:
Nothing makes any effing sense. Go figure
As much as I'd like it to be 6 lands - meaning lands for the 3 white aligned two color tribes and the 3 black aligned two color tribes - I'd have to agree with your educated guess that it's four.
In fact, you made so much sense that I'm starting to want marmalade between my toes as well.
Why? Ravnica didit. >:E
Augustin, Rasputin, Bruna, Brago, Ojutai
Does this mean we'll get a :symw::symb::symg: land for Treefolk? That (three colors) seems a bit unfair, considering the rest'll be 2 color.
Even MORESO for a 5-color Elemental land. Every set needs a 5-color land though...
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Lorwyn is disappointing because:
- It forces a theme (tribal) too hard, and leaves no realistic alternative for players not big on being forced to play a particular tribe.
- Only aggro and aggro-control races are represented, which will lead to a heavily skewed metagame, especially in block. Where are dragons, vampires, demons, angels, etc.?
- The art is underwhelming, IMO.
- It's a near-blatant rip off of another property (LotR).
- The tribeduals are jank outside of tribal decks. Taplands with no way to come into play untapped will always be jank unless the meta slows to a crawl, and the upcoming meta looks to be going in quite the opposite direction.
Personally, I have no respect for straight aggro strategies. They generally require very little skill to pilot, and result in either a quick win or a total scoop, which takes a lot of interaction out of the game. I can live with a few aggro decks floating around here or there, but to force nearly the entire game (especially block) in one direction is a poor strategy.Those are the marquee types. Creatures are given an automatic "bonus" for having those types, and as a result (and to keep them cool and special) they aren't used frequently. Even Scourge, which sort of had a Dragon tribal theme, only had four dragons in it.
It's true that Lorwyn itself focuses heavily on aggro strategies to the exception of combo and control, but you have to remember to take it in the context of the two-block design. Jelly is going to "play well" with Lorwyn, but have a completely different theme -- and almost any of the themes (graveyard, enchantments, etc.) that have been thrown around for it would support combo and control more heavily than aggro.
It's really not. Both have the same basic, public-domain source material (Celtic mythology and lore) and so share many similarities, but the details are quite different. LotR featured humans more prominently than any other race, didn't have merfolk or faeries or giants at all, had elves who were wise and intellectual instead of xenophobic and vain, etc.
They won't just like the enemy fetches, plus theres no reason to do it.
no we won't please read just the article or even just the title:rolleyes:
Anyway we also have a name for a land kithkin based land: Kinsbaile
We have no idea what the name for a boggart based land would be.
W
U
B
R
G
Those creatures do not fit the theme. Also, don't we have enough of them? Let some other creature types take centerstage for a while. Of course, I wish goblins had sat this one out, too, but that's balanced by the return of merfolk and that treefolk and faeries are finally getting support.
I think that merfolk are going to be more controlly than we expect. Also, RW giants might be a strong control force. It's hard to say now with so many cards left to spoil.
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963
Like you just said, the same thing could be said for Goblins, which are way overrepresented already. Elves aren't far off, either.
Again, there's no balance. It's aggro, aggro-control, or suffer.
And Giants = control? Since when? Just because they're slow doesn't make them control-oriented.
It's funny, but I think the asymmetry is a brilliant twist. I mean, it makes me uncomfortable too...you should either have 10 duals or 5 allied or 5 enemy. Logic demands it!
But in breaking free of the tyranny of symmetry, R&D opens up so much more design space. How were they going to top Rav block's 2-color pairings? The set was incredible, but it left little to do if you had to stay within the 10, 5 or 5 structure that we've all been working under for a while now.
I think its good that they try situating the tribes in their colors by flavor and then determining what resources (land, artifacts, etc) they might need from there. It's a fresh new take on design. Next set R&D may use an entirely different organizational scheme. And if this set has "random" parts of MTG, and other sets have "random" parts of MTG, I can see how they would fit together and overlap in new and interesting ways.
BB
Post Shards of Alara combos here please, for the convenience of the forum-goers
GENERATION 11: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.