The remaining Scry lands be in the next Set?
General forum
Posted on Sept. 13, 2013, 11:21 a.m. by GreAsyG
G/W(/x) are my colors of choice when it comes to playing magic and was pretty disappointed when G/W didn't make the cut as a Scry land in Theros. Has it been confirmed that the remaining 5 color combinations will make it in the next set to be released in February?
MindAblaze says... #3
Apparently it'll be 3 in February and 2 more in the last set. I believe I read that somewhere...where I couldn't tell you at the moment. lol
September 13, 2013 11:30 a.m.
and knowing my luck, the G/W scry land will be in the last set before M15.
September 13, 2013 11:33 a.m.
It was in the article about them bringing the scry mechanic back for Theros on WotC's site here
September 13, 2013 11:36 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #8
Yeah, I was disappointed to see that my B/R Temple wasn't in the first group. If I want to try to keep playing a revised version of my current Standard deck (Innistrad-Ravnica-M13-M14 Steel Necro) I guess I'll just have to make do with Rakdos Guildgate for the time being (or play Modern while I wait, instead).
September 13, 2013 11:40 a.m.
Actually, the article just says "This left us with five more for the rest of the block. What will the order be for their release? You'll have to wait and see. "
I seriously hope they'll just release the other 5 lands in the next set.
September 13, 2013 11:41 a.m.
I, too, was hoping for the B/R temple, Rhadamanthus, for my B/R deck.
September 13, 2013 11:42 a.m.
I highly doubt they will all be in one set. By saying "What will the order be for their release?" it implies we will not be getting them at the same time. Putting all in the same set would basically make that statement unnecessary since the remaining 5 would all be released at the same time and therefore need no order
September 13, 2013 12:03 p.m.
I'm just glad that they were kind enough to favor those of us that were stuck waiting til Gatecrash to get color-fixing. It was a nice touch.
September 13, 2013 12:12 p.m.
Not having U/W nor U/R hurts America. I only started thinking about this yesterday, and it's a real problem. Maybe the DIC, sorry I mean WotC, wants Aggro with the first set, midrange in the second, and control in the third?
September 13, 2013 12:31 p.m.
They could still release the other 5 lands in the next block. They know that everybody will be asking "when are we getting the other lands?" so they went ahead and made a cryptic remark.
We all know Wizards likes to be cryptic at times.
September 13, 2013 12:35 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
I highly doubt they would split the release of the remaining cycle. There's no reason to do so, and it would leave the printings out of balance.
September 13, 2013 1:17 p.m.
actiontech says... #16
I agree with Epoch; it would be totally out of character and would totally hose up the flavor of the sets. I'd be 95% sure the other 5 will be in the next set.
September 13, 2013 1:29 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #17
What about the Innistrad utility lands, as a precedent-setting counter-example...to play devil's advocate.
September 13, 2013 1:34 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
Those were fringe cards. We're talking about format-defining duals here.
September 13, 2013 1:39 p.m.
Izanagi_Deus says... #19
I tend to believe that the other 5 scrylands will be in the next set, and that the 3rd set of the block will have some sort of utility lands. I could easily be wrong, but this is just what seems to be the most likely way things fall out in my opinion.
September 13, 2013 2:03 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #20
All I'm saying is a 10-land cycle was printed within the past two years that spanned the entire block. Spreading them out would simply change the definition of the format, and allow things to play out differently. It would still shape the format, but nobody said that would be impossible or even undesired.
September 13, 2013 2:05 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
It wouldn't be logical to spread the lands out. Utility lands and dual lands are not the same things. You can't really compare the situations.
Besides, the scry lands are slowing down the format by virtue of entering the battlefield tapped. WOTC doesn't need to neuter certain color combinations by delaying the release of their multicolor support.
September 13, 2013 2:20 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #22
Well, they're not really neutered since its basically a choice between these and gates. Neither am I arguing the fact that it makes the most sense to print them all in the next set, but from a "selling-boosters" perspective it could serve WotC's purpose. From a development standpoint with limited in mind I know I'd put them in the next set, but that doesn't mean that their motives are the same as us, the players.
All im saying is that while unlikely, it's entirely possible that they would split them up.
September 13, 2013 2:43 p.m.
I like how you state, "... its basically a choice between these and gates.", as though there's actually a comparison between something that does nothing and shouldn't be played, and a cards with a powerful effect that should be played in many deck types.
Someone who knows the usefulness of scry will want the new lands in any deck where speed is not absolutely required, and consistency is a factor.
No one should be playing the gates, unless they intend to win with Maze's End .
September 13, 2013 2:49 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #24
I'm not unaware that the Scry lands are strictly better than their guildgate counterparts (barring the very narrow circumstances that the gate subtype matters.) I myself would/have run basic lands over the guildgates in a number of decks. I'm actually on the "Scrylands are good" bandwagon.
That being said if they were to split up the printings in our unlikely hypothetical world, the two guilds that go unprinted won't be any farther behind then the five that are unprinted in Theros. To say they wouldn't/couldn't neuter two guilds by not printing two color-pairings makes it seem like it matters to wizards what cards are played when.
September 13, 2013 3:34 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #25
They wouldn't, and, logically, they couldn't. There's absolutely no reason for WOTC to hold back on printing part of an allied cycle of dual lands, especially when the enemy half of the lands were all printed in a single set.
While it's fully within your right to make arguments about what could happen, some arguments aren't worth making (i.e. those without credible support).
September 14, 2013 1:02 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #26
The reason Return to Ravnica and Gatecrash could do 5 and 5 (both of them mixed ally/enemy, like Theros) was because both of them were large sets. Do you really think a small set like Born of the Gods would devote 5 whole rare slots to scry duals?
September 14, 2013 10:19 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
That's a more legitimate argument, but I'm still inclined to say yes. I don't see much reason for WOTC to break up the cycle other than to conserve rare slots, and I personally don't feel that's enough reason to sacrifice balance.
September 14, 2013 2:17 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #28
Well, we'll see what happens I guess. It's all just speculation at this point.
September 14, 2013 3:37 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #29
As is everything. Such is the nature of discussions about unreleased product.
ljs54321 says... #2
3 will be in the next set and the last 2 will be in the last set of the block.
September 13, 2013 11:30 a.m.