Would they make mono colored fetchlands?
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on July 28, 2015, 7:23 p.m. by DX5
Would they ever make a cycle of fetch lands that works exactly like Scalding Tarn or Windswept Heath but only searches one of the land types (Islands/Forests ect.)
Disclaimer: They may have already done this and I don't know about it
JohnnyBaggins says... #3
I would play it in EDH. Okay, in EDH you take any fixing you get, to be honest. I could see it seeing play in two-coloured (or something like Burn, which is essentially mono with splashes, but no non-mountain dual) modern. I'd like it. Would be interesting enough.
July 28, 2015 7:30 p.m.
PasorofMuppets says... #4
I would be kind of surprised, especially without the paying life cost, they would be really good if you could fetch up non-basics. Functionally the same as fetches in decks that splash a color or two in modern like Twin since you play few basic mountians or forests anyway.
July 28, 2015 7:34 p.m.
I suppose it's possible. They wouldn't get rid of the pay life part because Crucible of Worlds and such, but I'd play it in some modern decks and even EDH. Actually now that I think of it, that may be the direction they're going with Battle For Zendikar.
July 28, 2015 7:38 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)
July 28, 2015 8:09 p.m.
well the main issue with this land cycle idea is where to put them in a set, for them to be good enough as a rare they'd have to sit in a standard that had a Brainstorm like card (of course delve cards might be strong enough for this anyway). Now another idea would be if they printed a single rare fetch land that could only fetch a land that can't produce any colored land.
July 28, 2015 8:11 p.m.
How about exactly the same as Onslaught/Zendikar fetches except:
- You pay no life
- You are restricted to searching for a basic land
What do you guys think?
July 28, 2015 8:16 p.m.
Wizard_of_the_Broke says... #10
I 100% want to see these, at uncommon:
Wouldn't be more powerful than current fetches, would be great in EDH, and good budget options across formats.
July 28, 2015 8:34 p.m.
KillDatBUG says... #11
They'd be redundant, since the fetches we have now do the same thing, except they are strictly better. Wizards has no reason to print fetches like the ones you described, since they serve no practical purpose compared to the other fetches. In order to be useful for Standard or Limited, they'd also have to reprint the shocks (And at that point, you're wasting way too much design space).
Though don't get me wrong, it's a cool idea; I just don't think that it will happen for the reasons I stated.
July 28, 2015 8:34 p.m. Edited.
weisemanjohn says... #12
So you are looking for a better Evolving Wilds that brings the land in untapped?
July 28, 2015 8:35 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #13
We've gotten this thread a million times. Before, it was because people were complaining that fetches were too expensive. They are currently about as low as you're going to find them. Get reprint Onslaught fetches now.
Aren't you the person who thinks that Tibalt is actually good?
July 28, 2015 8:46 p.m.
The mono fetches would still be playable in modern... There are a lot of decks that run every shock/basic of one basic land type; for example, Naya Burn (Mountain), GW Elves (Forest), UW Merfolk (Island), GB Rock (Swamp), etc. Think about all the decks in modern that use only 2 colors. After they put in their playset of Verdant Catacombs (for a plain GB deck), why buy Wooded Foothills and Bloodstained Mires for your extra fetches when you could use the mono ones? Anyone who says these cards can't see modern play is ill-informed about the format. And of course, EDH players would eat them up too.
July 28, 2015 9:08 p.m.
GreenGhost says... #16
Perhaps if they still needed the life paid but the fetch could also tap for colorless mana? That might work
July 28, 2015 10:11 p.m.
I run Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded in every deck I own including U/R Splinter Twin to great results.
July 28, 2015 10:21 p.m.
SpartanCEL says... #19
Actually I feel like no-life-mono-colored-fetches would be played in tiered decks. Especially in decks like modern burn.
Your main color is red. So if you just need a mountain you get to thin your deck for no life, or if you need the white (or whatever color) you search for a Sacred Foundry and again, no 1 life loss (2 is better than 3.) While this is minimum life loss it's definitely better (in a deck like burn) to run the "mono colored fetchlands"
I do not think they will be printed because the community will just throw a fit about the 2015 fetchland buyout that would happen. There's more relevant reasons but I'm sure enough people have already said
July 28, 2015 10:35 p.m.
Mono colored, no life loss fetch lands would be broken. Mono-colored decks would run 4-6 basics depending on the game plan, and the rest would be fetches. This would make library manipulation so much easier if you had a way to reveal the top of your library, or if you were doing shit with brainstorm and ponder. On top of that, each fetch you crack reduces the chance you draw a land by like 2% each.
The pros, in all their articles, always say that cracking fetch lands only minimally improve your draws. However, anyone who's played an online MMORPG knows that improving your draw 1-2%, per fetch, is huge when it comes to improving your draws.
So yea, they would probably be too good. Especially when it comes to two color decks that allow shock lands and ABUR dual lands. Not losing life to fetch lands in stuff like Elves, Death and Taxes, Omnitell, and all the other two color legacy decks would be an absurd advantage over the tri-color "fair" decks such as stoneblade and Rug/Bug delver.
July 29, 2015 12:48 a.m.
Wizard_of_the_Broke says... #21
TheDevicer - I almost agree with you completely, but I think dual fetches that could only get basics and didn't cost life would be problematic. If they were playable in tiered decks (and I agree they would be in at least some), they'd probably cause price spikes and buyouts, while only being useful to a limited number of decks/players, and not re-printed for years - at a minimum. At worst, they'd be better than the current fetches in some decks, or totally broken as some have suggested. And any other way you wanted to balance them a bit (other than life loss) would make them slow, so no better than Evolving Wilds.
I was arguing for the fetch examples I posted in comment #9 (which have life loss) because they would be a major boon to budget players, would still be playable in some tiered decks that need some limited mana-fixing for splashes, would help balance out the insanity of Blood Moon, and hence be beneficial to Modern generally IMO without creating a new set of price issues.
For those of you who think different fetchlands are just a bad idea altogether: Part of the point is that they'd be redundant, and they probably ought to be slightly worse than dual fetches. WotC prints new stuff for Standard that's somewhat redundant, but worse for Modern constantly (see: Condemn vs Path to Exile). Those cards sometimes become important alternatives for budget players in Modern, they don't screw up Standard, are easier to do than reprints, and don't cause buyouts or major price hits to players (in other words, they fit a bunch or WotC's stated goals and a lot of player's criteria for what's good for the game). I do agree that they'd be way more useful with shocks, and they won't happen in Standard soon in all likelihood- but they'd be potentially still usable in Standard (like if they brought back landfall or printed some new, but slightly worse fetchable dual, which would also be cool). So whether WotC will or won't we have no idea, but with no major downsides (at least to printing the stuff I mentioned in comment #9) I think they ought to do new fetches.
July 29, 2015 1:25 a.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #22
kyuuri117 the deck thinning provided by a deck with 8 fetchlands and 12 basics equates to: suspend 20, pay 4 life, draw a card.
That's what the math behind it says. Running fetches purely for thinning will result in a lower winning percentage, that's the reason the pros advise against doing so.
July 29, 2015 2:34 a.m.
RussischerZar says... #23
They could totally do mono-colored fetches it in a set that has some sort of Landfall mechanic. Oh hey, isn't that a Zendikar block around the corner?
July 29, 2015 6:29 a.m.
RussischerZar says... #24
Also, having a card that is "strictly better" doesn't mean Wizards wouldn't do it.
Dismiss vs Contradict
Fall of the Hammer vs Tail Slash
Impulse vs Anticipate
The list goes on.
July 29, 2015 6:37 a.m.
I mean if they aren't giving us Scalding Tarn and Arid Mesa, I hope to God we at least get these. I'd play the hell out of them in EDH and even my modern RDW. They would definitely have to be printed at rare, though. The only issue I see with this is that they would suck for drafting, and Wizards gives too many shits about our draft players these days. I just want some type of fetchland in BFZ.
Maringam says... #2
They could, but they would be significantly worse in all cases. If they did not make you pay life, however, I would totally play them alongside the normal fetches.
July 28, 2015 7:27 p.m.