Just a thought!
Posted on Jan. 4, 2017, 5:53 p.m. by abenz419
For all who keep up on the spoilers, I'm sure you've seen the numerous cards that do something if a permanent you control left the battle field this turn. I've seen a lot of speculative talk about some of these cards in modern because of the obvious interaction with fetchlands. It's something basically every deck uses and makes the revolt mechanic a little less "build-around".
This got me thinking. There are already a handful of ways to sac creatures or artifacts and ways to blink or bounce permanents currently in standard. But we all know that the enemy colored fetchlands need to be, and will (eventually at some point) be reprinted. Could this new ability be unintentionally hinting at something coming in a future set? These cards are obviously not designed to only work within the set they're printed, they have to work in conjunction with the other sets that'll be standard legal at the same time. So we can safely assume that there will be at least a couple of cards that work well with the revolt ability in the next couple of sets. Could some of those cards be the enemy fetchlands? It's really just a thought with no actual physical evidence to back it up, but it's not so out there that it can easily be dismissed without some kind of hard evidence against it. What do you guys think?
Also, before I get a dozen responses telling me that they're too powerful for standard, please remember that "power level" is a relative term. Directly effected by what else is available in the format and what other people are playing (i.e. a 2 mana spell that blows up all artifacts is OP in a format using almost exclusively all artifacts and completley irrelevant in a format using none). The last time we had fetches in standard it created a diverse format. Even if the argument could be made that people just played 3 and 4 color good stuff decks, that doesn't change the fact that more deck options were available to players because the fetches were around. That was also at a time where standard was focused on the 3 color wedges because of khans block. There will also be a point in time where the Battle for Zendikar lands will no longer be standard legal but AER and the revolt ability still will be. Giving the fetches fewer targets to hit and making them unable to get dual lands greatly reduces the power level of the fetches. The fetches coming in as the battle lands rotate out could be a real possibility because of that.
Like I said, this was just a thought I had. It has plenty of logic and merit behind it that you can't just dismiss it without some hard evidence proving otherwise. But at the same time, I don't have an hard evidence proving it either. So I was just kind of curious what other intelligent people had to say about this.
I made this prediction back when people were buzzing about EMA and Conspiracy, but it's worth repeating here:
When Wizards will reprint fetches, it will be in the first set of a new block. The soonest they could possibly reprint the fetches is AFTER the battle lands rotate out. Wizards already saw what happened when they had fetches working in conjunction with accessible duals. There's no way they'll let that happen again. Fetches by themselves are not great for standard, but they're acceptable.
Wizards is keenly aware that people need reprints of those lands, but they can't just stick them in anything. They're too much of a cash cow. They're keeping them in stock until they can use them to guarantee sales for a product. Still, they also need to reprint them in a real seat to meet player needs.
As a result, I believe we'll get enemy fetch lands when BFZ rotates. For those unaware, BFZ rotates with the entire Innistrad block, leaving us with the Kaladesh block, the Amokhet block, and Ham and Eggs.
TLDR: Enemy fetches in Ham.
January 4, 2017 6:18 p.m.
I hope you do not mind a mild criticism.
"and will (eventually at some point) be reprinted" We do not know this.
"These cards are obviously not designed to only work within the set they're printed" They obviously are. Cheerios is a deck, there are plenty of flicker effects in Kaladesh, bounce effects, and a large number of ETB abilities. In fact there are SO many, that you even mehikned it in "There are already a handful of ways to sac creatures or artifacts and ways to blink or bounce permanents currently in standard", so yes, they were designed to work in the set. The vast majority of cards have being 'designed to work in the set' as the top priority, they wouldn't make a whole mechanic or theme specifically to bw used outside of the set. If you mean that the mechanic has interactions outside of the set, then most mechanics made do, it has been said many times that they hate parasitic mechanics."Even if the argument could be made that people just played 3 and 4 color good stuff decks, that doesn't change the fact that more deck options were available to players because the fetches were around"_ The argument could also be made the those deck options prevented players from building more lower power decks, because having access to four colours meant you could only use a certain set of cards. Do you think Jeskai Ascendency and Siege Rhino would have been so prevalent if decks had a substantially harder time running them?
"you can't just dismiss it without some hard evidence proving otherwise. But at the same time, I don't have an hard evidence proving it either" A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You also don't prove negative claims (that'd be quite obnoxious, assuming that all things are true until proven otherwise is simply daft) you prove positive claims.
"So I was just kind of curious what other intelligent people had to say about this." So, I suppose you won't use this to discourage or condemn a critique of your 'logical' thought, will you?
I apologise if this came off as rude, it was not meant to. I simply disagree that any of this necessitates that the fetchlands will be reprinted anytime soon, and felt a critique of your argument might do some good. I also fear that you believing an upcoming reprint is inevitable shown in "and will (eventually at some point) be reprinted" may have lead you to some confirmation bias.
I feel TheDevicer made an excellent point in saying that they would be likely to print Fetchlands in the primary set of a block. Although I am not as convinced Ham will contain them, great point nevertheless.
January 4, 2017 6:25 p.m.
Shame. Missed some spelling errors of mine.
"In fact there are SO many, that you even mentioned"
"specifically to be used outside"
I believe that is all of them, save a syntax error somewhere in the middle where I tried to quote you.
January 4, 2017 6:30 p.m.
The fact that revolt works so well with fetch lands is, IMNAAHO, a fact that makes fetches less likely in the same standard, not more.
January 4, 2017 7:13 p.m.
@Simon_Williamson I think you misunderstood what I said with your first paragraph, despite copy/pasting what I wrote. I said they're not designed to ONLY function within the set they were printed. I never denied that cards are designed to work within their own set (as you stated, I even point it out), I was simply pointing out that it's not their ONLY function as they also have to work with the other sets that will be standard legal at the same time. This means they include cards in sets that while they still function with the other cards in that set, are designed to bolster a mechanic/deck from a previous or later set.
As for your point about having access to 4 colors meaning people could only use a certain set of cards, it doesn't make sense. Having access to 4 colors literally means there are more options available to you. Who do you think has a larger card pool to choose from in standard... the guy playing mono white or the guys playing abzan? It should be obvious that the guys playing mono white can only choose from the white and colorless cards in standard, while the abzan player has access to every black, green, white, or colorless spell in standard. Giving the Abzan player far more options when it comes to deck building. If people chose to play 4 colors but weren't building lower powered decks, it's not because their options were limited it's because that's what they decided to do.
I also don't understand the point your making about Siege Rhino and Jeskai Ascendancy. If it was hard for people to cast them, do I think they would have been as prevalent? Of course not, because people wouldn't be able to cast them. But the same can literally be said about every single card ever printed. If you made every card that saw significant play harder to cast, they would all see less play.... regardless of how many colors you were playing. Your also talking about cards from a set that was completely focused on the 3 color wedges. The set would have been a huge failure if it had been completely designed around those 3 color combinations and then they made it hard for people to play multiple colors. So, while yes, I do think they'd see less play if they were harder to cast. I also think that's irrelevant because they (along with many other cards in that set) would have never been printed if WotC intended on making it hard to play multiple colors during that time in standard.
Keep in mind, I never promised or guaranteed that a reprint was coming soon. I was simply pointing out that this presents a sort of "perfect storm" kind of situation. It would benefit mechanics/themes already in standard, the battle lands will be rotating out and their power level greatly decreases when you can't reliably get dual lands, they are in desperate need of a reprint, etc.. Unless they're planning to make more fetchable dual lands in the near future, it makes "Ham" probably their best opportunity to reprint them without significantly warping the standard format since they were first printed. It doesn't guarantee they will be reprinted, but that doesn't mean it can't be discussed. You also present no evidence showing that they won't be reprinted. So while you may not agree with me, you just criticize my reasoning with misunderstanding and things that don't really make sense, you don't actually provide anything that would argue against what I was actually saying.
January 4, 2017 9:48 p.m.
Odd. I distinctly remember submitting my comment and now it is gone. I shall paraphrase what I said as I can't be bothered to type my counter argument again.
My misunderstanding was minimal. It was perhaps two sentences at most, and nowhere near all of my argument like you claim. I addressed your other points clearly.
Access to more colours is not more diversity, not necessarily. A 4 colour deck essentially has access to the whole card pool, limiting what cards, strategies, and decks are good. It is not that the relative power level is higher, it's that there are less than 4 competitive strategies, sure with a fee variants, but the deck is almost completely the same. This is not diversity. A red blue deck asking what the best red and/or blue two drop leads to diversity. A white and black deck asking what the best white and/or black two drop is leads to diversity. A Jeskai black deck asking what the best two drop is leads to homogeny.
I never tried to say that you promised they'd be reprinted, just like I didn't promise they wouldn't be. I simply disagreed with your argument and how you presented it. If my argument 'did not make sense' I encourage you to read your own. Your argument was akin to saying "this mechanic cares about flickering and bouncing so clearly they're gonna reprint Oblivion Ring soon.", as for calling my criticism unsubstantiated, an argument can be dismissed with as little evidence as it offered.
January 4, 2017 11:21 p.m.
Having access to two colours and perhaps a splash increases diversity over having access to three colours, and a fourth. This leads to a much shallower card pool of playable due to some cards being so good that it is unreasonable to not play them. Siege Rhino and Jeskai Ascendancy defined the standard format. Having access to too many colours leads to only the best cards in each colour being playable. I cannot repeat this enough. This prevents a green white deck asking "what is the best 2 drop in green and white" and a red and black deck asking "what is the best 2 drop in red and black" to both asking "what is the best 2 drop", leading to decks homogenizing, diversity lowering, and standard being a poor experience. Yes a set with a 3 colour theme needs more fixing, but not nearly the level Khans saw. A deck being limited to combining only certain cards (say, 3 two colour combinations rather than a single 3 colour one, or two 3 colour combinations rather than a single 4 colour one) leads to diversity of decks, not homogeny as a format. There is also something to be said for diversity of strategy rather than diversity within the deck. When your options are "Siege rhino value" and "Jeskai non-creature value", those two strategies may have a few variants, but are ultimately the SAME STRATEGY USING THE SAME CARDS THROUGHOUT THE SAME DECKS. My point was that Jeskai Ascendancy would not be NEARLY as dominate if the deck couldn't EASILY use black as well.
I never said that you promised that Fetchlands would be reprinted, I simply said that your arguments toward them possibly being reprinted soon is weak, I remain thoroughly unconvinced.
"You also present no evidence showing that they won't be reprinted. So while you may not agree with me, you just criticize my reasoning with misunderstanding and things that don't really make sense" I misunderstood your implication of a certain quote. Your phrasing was misleading. Beyond that my argument was coherent, and quite consise, if mine 'did not really make sense' then I'd hate to see what you'd think if I argued similar to how you do. And yes, I do not provide any substantial evidence against there being fetchlands, because, like I've said, you brought no evidence for it. A claim that is without merit can be dismissed without merit. In all but possibly one paragraph I argued against what you were saying, you simply misunderstood what I meant.
I am a fool. My phone is (to phrase charitably) quite cheap, free in fact, when I attempted to post this it said it worked, closed browser, came back later hitting a notification and noticed my comment wasn't there. Little did I know it was in another tab. I apologize for repeating myself.
January 4, 2017 11:53 p.m.
"It has plenty of logic and merit behind it that you can't just dismiss it without some hard evidence proving otherwise. But at the same time, I don't have an hard evidence proving it either. So I was just kind of curious what other intelligent people had to say about this."
Invalidated your entire post in a single paragraph.