I want to quote this, because I believe it is EXTREMELY correct. I was just playing shandalar the other day, and man, did I miss fetches. I'd say ban ons/zen fetches. yeah!Originally Posted by rleader
Banning fetches would make duals even more necessary. With enough fetchlands, it's possible to build a beck with a manabase based on basics. Not ideal, but possible. That won't work without fetches.
why couldn't you make a mana base based on basic lands without fetch lands? seems that mono-red burn, death and taxes, dragon stompy, and several other decks including merfolk have been doing just that as of late, unless I am terribly missing something here...
All of those are monocoloured decks. Obviously, the ideal manabase for a two-coloured deck has all the required duals. But let's say I'm some new player who wishes to play, for example, goyfsligh. I have one single taiga from way back. With a full set of fetchlands, all of them affordable, I can make a somewhat functional Rg deck with my one taiga, enough fetchlands and one or two forests. I won't win a tournament with it but at least I can play. Without fetchlands I can't do this. They allow you to run fewer duals. Your idea would force people to play with four duals of each needed combination instead of allowing them to cut back. Demand for duals would increase.
a goyf sligh deck with only 1 red source, and 3 green sources as well as how many fetch lands... playable? I hope you are at least including a few mountains and a few more than 2 forests on top of those fetch lands, otherwise your playing a really risky game.
Is this an attempt to troll me? Obviously you add mountains.
sorry it wasn't meant as a troll, though I could see how it could be interpreted that way.
My point is this. If you have fetchlands AND Dual Lands in the same environment (regardless of if they are the originals or the ravnica duals, and assuming you ignore aggro in the case of the ravnica duals), you can in effect run any combination of colors that you want with relative ease.
On the flip side if you were to remove either of the dual land sets, or both of the dual land sets, and only have the fetch lands. Then you would be left with only utilizing Fetch Lands and the sub par M10 CiPT Lands and similar lands to help fix your mana base. The format would decrease in speed considerably.
Alternatively, if you were to remove the Fetch Lands from the environment, you would similarly decrease the speed of the format as mana fixing would become alot harder to achieve since you would have to rely on the sheer randomness of the draw and things like Sensei's Divining Top, Brainstorm, and Ponder to smooth out your mana base, something which we currently don't have to rely on.
Simply put, as far as a healthy legacy format is concerned, we kind of NEED both the fetch lands and the dual lands to be able to function in any simblance of the way that we currently function. Without them Legacy really is no longer what we would recognize as legacy.
And again, I apologize, that post was not intended to be a troll... I suppose I still have a lot to work on.
Not sure if this came up yet but I sure liked Bill Stark's take on the whole thing. A whole lot more reasonable then the garbage that is the Magic Show.
-Andrew
No offense taken of course.
Anyhow: duals and fetches together make legacy a very fast format in which you can play any combination of colours you want, I agree with that. But as long as duals are legal, the fetchlands are the best guarantee that you don't need four of every one of them.
Too many people have invested in duals to see them banned. Here's an idea though: why not restrict duals in legacy? You can still use them, but demand will slow down. I know that vintage is the only format with a restricted list, but that wasn't always the case.
I kind of like the idea of a restricted list, at least with regard to things on the reserved list. However I think that is making legacy too similar to Vintage and I doubt Wizards is interested in such an idea.
As far as Bill Stark's post on youtube. I am inclined to agree with him 100% that the person who initially posted this rumor on salvation is doing so without any journalistic integrity. But in a way, that is understandable, I mean many of the modern day rumor mongers for new sets do exactly the same thing, so it is hardly surprising that if someone has insider information about something other than a set design, especially when it comes to something that could potentially get them fired (assuming they work for wizards) or get legal action pushed against them (if they don't work for Wizards), that they would go out of their way to protect their identity.
If by "reasonable" you mean "cynical," then I agree ;)
There's a lot of truth in Bill Stark's premise, however the conclusions he draws from it don't seem justified. The fact that this rumor is being discussed has nothing to do with believing or encouraging the original poster, its because the idea (whether true or false) is quite intriguing.
If people are so bothered that this much discussion can be spawned by a (most likely false) rumor, then I would suggest that they pretend the OP was a suggestion... if it helps them sleep at night.
@thread: personally, I am interested in this format. Don't get me wrong, I love legacy, but unfortunately wotc already crippled it beyond repair. If overextended ever exists, maybe it can just overwrite and replace extended. The idea that a format similar to legacy can have reprints and tournament support is exciting, to say the least. Even though legacy has a special place in my nerdy little heart, I don't see why this format couldn't replicate the diversity and deck building opportunities that attracted me to legacy in the first place.
On the one hand, I'm glad that some positive consideration of the suggestion has now happened. But I'm also bothered because back when it was just a suggestion, the reaction to the idea was almost completely negative - it took turning it into a rumor, perhaps dishonestly, to get the idea considered seriously.
Yes, I agree this is indeed disturbing, but it's certainly nothing new: many are irrational.
not @you, but just because I like to hear myself talk (or rather: see myself type):
The bottom line is that not all of us are irrational (at least partially, unless ur an android ;p), and just because the OP has no credibility does not imply in any way that we shouldn't be discussing the idea until it's presented more appropriately. Ideas can (and usually should) be treated as entities of their own without regard of where they came from or how they were presented.
And just for fun, even if we did suppose the topic of interest was irrational behavior (and not overextended), then there are much worse examples out there than simple rumor hype.
It is impossible for us to tell whether Eldrazi Spy lied or told the truth in his MTGS post. But one thing was clear in the wake of this rumor: the Magic community responded. Everyone had some sort of opinion about the rumored format, whether positive or negative. The response was overwhelming, as even Bill Stark noted in his YouTube posting. While "overwhelming response" does not at all translate to "overwhelming support", a lot of potential supporters of this New Format have shown themselves. Moreover, at the risk of making a generalization, I would say that most respondents reacted favorably to the idea.
Whether a budding Legacy player lacking duals, a dissatisfied Extended player, a Standard player attempting to find a new, challenging, powerful format, a casual player from some time over the last decade, etc., players across the internet gathered together in some agreement about the format. Those detractors of this format are in a predictable minority. They are mostly current Legacy players with a lot of economic commitment to this format. I have yet to see a Standard or Extended player who BOTH complained about the new format AND wanted to switch to Legacy, not "Legacy Lite." Apathetic Standard and Extended players don't exactly count, because they wouldn't be joining either Legacy or Legacy lite.
I agree with Bill Stark: rumors are rumors, and they should be treated as nothing more. But that said, we should not think of this purely as a rumor of something that is going to happen. We should also think of it as a suggestion about what could, and maybe should, happen. This is a more productive approach, and one that Wizards will most pay attention to.
-ktkenshinx-
Does everything you say have to be in grandiose definites ? Nobody gathered from across the globe, a handful of random people posted in a couple threads on various internet forums. Most of the standard players I've met dont even know anything about the other formats, other than their names. A lot even think there is just a type 1 and type 2 still. Im sure you could get this much discussion if someone randomly posted a rumor that they were finally introducing purple as a color too. So why dont you tone down the obnoxious embellishments a little.
The thing is, Wizards has the choice between saving Legacy or saving the value of the cards in the Reprint Policy.
So they choose to kill Legacy and destroy the value of the cards.
Makes no sense to me.
Let's really not go into card value again. This is getting really old. It's about as bad as talking about the reprint policy.
I think I need to post that beating a dead horse picture again.
To be fair, I was suprised at how much coverage and thought was going into this completely unfounded rumor. It definitely resonated with a large number of people. Shit, I remember when Extended used to be a worthwhile format anot just just Standard Plus.
No.
Furthermore, everyone knows the 6th color will be dark green.
The sixth color will be orange! This was revealed in the pages of The Duelist itself!
http://www.airshipentertainment.com/...?date=20080713
Of course, this also predicted that Rukh Egg would receive an erratum to make it work like Blacker Lotus, and that Serra Angel would never be reprinted, and that Anson Maddock's grandson would end up doing the art on every new Magic card. Thus, there are some who doubt its prophetic accuracy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote