Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-04 02:31:30)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-09-04 02:31:30)
I'll note that the Fieldmist Borderpost cycle play quite like coloured lands (deliberately so). It's great to cast a Bant Sureblade on turn 2 off a t1 Borderpost, and have it power up your Faerie Swarm and View from Above as well.
(They're also useful in an extort deck or a Mishra, Artificer Prodigy deck because they're "lands" that count as artifact spells. But that's less relevant to this discussion.)
So it turns out Magic can cope with "lands" occasionally having colour (there's also always Dryad Arbor). But the question remains, why would you want to? What problem are you solving or what gameplay experience are you enabling by doing it?
Good point. We may not be able to change now, even if it would have been more intuitive if forests were green to start with.
Aggregation problems in another factor. Ancient Den seemed fair, if not weak, when it first appeared. One year later, it was banned. That was probably affinity's fault. Maybe. But affinity hasn't really been a problem since Wizards dropped the ban hammer on the artifact lands.
Colored lands seem to create similar problems with cards that ask you to count the number of colored permanents you control. Also of note: This is the reason why Wizards didn't print any card that said "Tribal Land - Elf" in Lorwyn.
Admittedly, most cards care about 'red creatures', not 'red permanents'. But the cards that do ask for colored permanents (Horde of Boggarts's cycle, and Halam Djinn's cycle, for example) get a crazy large boost. I don't think this is so much a question of "What design space am I gaining", but "What design space am I willing to sacrifice."
Most beginners expect lands to be coloured. If it was basic lands, I'd say the lands should be coloured by default, just because that's what you'd expect.
However, that doesn't really help with vivid lands, etc (one colour, all colours, all colours until they lose their counter)? Or Kessig Wolf Run (colourless? rg?)
Well, one major reason they didn't like it in the past was that it made them easier to destroy. And that was back when 2-mana land destruction was a thing.
But the colour hosers are less extreme now. So less of a problem.
There's also "My creature has prot green, can I pay its mana costs with mana from green lands?" Which is minor, but avoiding it is nice.
But apart from making life a little bit nicer for a new player (I mean, it is just obvious that forests are green, right?) I dunno what they should do specially. They feel like snow land - minor enough to not matter. (The set could have a devotion-like mechanic, I guess)
we do. they're called kithkin. As a matter of fact, let's make kithkin the W/r race. Keke
Well, that's precisely how it's gone. We started with monored dwarves (Dwarven Vigilantes etc); then we had red-white dwarves (Duergar Mine-Captain etc); now finally we can have monowhite dwarves :)
The "live in mountain/mines" problem is strong, though. I'd expect monored dwarves or then red-white dwarves before monowhite dwarves.
Yes. Only the cardset admin can do it, obviously. It's a link from the cardset's front page; e.g. this page for the Conversation set. Be careful, as it's completely irreversible; even I can't get the data back if you change your mind. (For a less drastic approach, you could consider editing the cardset's settings so only admins can see it. That'll remove it from the recent activity link for everyone except you.)
You don't need to invoke traditional homelands. It seems to me that dwarves are often characterized as fiery-tempered, but generally law-abiding.
If there were characteristic races for dual-colors, then dwarves would be
. It's their best fit because of their philosophy and traditional homes.
apparently Wotc has a different concept for dwarves which makes them unsuitable as a pure white race. not to mention Magic already has too many races, so trying to create a fantasy universe that is less Tolkien is not a bad thing. Sure you can make white dwarves, but those cards could just as easily be human. and red/white can be goblins.
Yeah, your set had dwarves in all colours. I had dwarves as my smiths in Sienira's Facets, but just in white: Halberd Evangelist, Journeyman Falconwright, Smith of Ages, Soliforge Guardsmith, Soliforge Marshal, Soliforge Avenger, Stern Suppressor, Soliforge Conscripts.
So in other words, yes, I agree dwarves are a great fit for white, and I wish Wizards would get on with it. I remember back when Eventide came out and the Duergar (white-red hybrid creatures with type Dwarf) appeared, a few people were heralding it as the long-awaited move of dwarves to white. (Yes, it had been long-awaited back in 2008.) But it never happened. The Creative team admitted it wasn't intended as "here, dwarves are moving to white at last!" but rather "we needed a race type for these weird red-white creatures, and we decided 'Dwarf' was close enough". Duergar Hedge-Mage looks pretty close to the traditional fantasy dwarf, but the others like Duergar Mine-Captain are pretty odd.
I did Dwarven Patrol, Knight of Reduced Stature, Dwarven Militia, Lord of Smoky Mountain, Dwarven Army, Dwarven Battlesmith, Fortress Commander, Smo, Akroma's Acolyte
But then, that set was putting dwarves into all five colours.
White gets humans, and spirits.
Saying that; I did white dwarves in my set - they were the city builders, the architects and the creators of legendary swords - rather than the delvers, the diggers, the crazed hermits in the mountains.
The dwarves of ancient tolkien history, more or less. So there's certainly flavourful room for such differentiation.
I like kithkin. I find it unfortunate that Kith identity is so wrapped up in Lorwyn, though. I want Lorwyn Kith in other sets, and not Amarou. I wonder if this conundrum has been holding Wizards back from doing any Kithkin...
As for white 'not needing' a representative race... I don't know. We used to use the same argument for 'big blue creatures'. Then Wizards landed on Sphinxes. It seemed to work out of them. I don't think marquee creature types are necessary... but I do think it helps sell a game better.
i don't think white wants or needs a representative race like the other colors. it's been doing great for 20 years without a main race. yet unofficially most white creatures are humans. white's representative creature type are classes, like soldier, knight, etc.
but if i was to choose a white race, i prefer cats. 1. first white planeswalker was cat. 2. cats are cooler. 3. makes magic different from generic fantasy settings.
sure dwarf can be partly white. like MaRo said, it's not a flavor dunk. they already tried another short white race, kithkins. it'd be easier to mold kithkin than dwarves at this point. so, i'd also choose kithkin before dwarf.
sigh When will I learn to search before suggesting something?
Here are the 137 people who suggested this before: https://www.google.co.uk/?q=site:http%3A%2F%2Fmarkrosewater.tumblr.com+dwarves+white
Dwarves have no home. White has no characteristic race (red goblins, black zombies, green elves, blue merfolk). Dwarves value stubbornness, blind loyalty, and tradition above everything else. Can this be a good plan...?
It breaks the "lives in mountains, likes caves, gets angry" connection, but those are already the things goblins already do better...? You might have to have more Duergar Assailants and fewer Dwarven Blastminers but...
Cache! Oh, excellent. I completely forgot about that.
Unfortunately, this bring up the hazy question of whether it would be acceptable for me to host Throne Magic on JMGariepy.com... at least temporarily. I suppose the only way to know is to contact the Magic Lampoon editors. Looks like the cache also has their web address on it. We'll see what they have to say.
google cache still seems to have it.
I've been working on making a gateway for all the relevant Magic: the Gathering casual formats. Throne Magic is on queque. Last week, I checked in at Magiclampoon.com, where Throne Magic first spawned from, but all the pages were blank. That's weird, but I figured that whatever problem they had, they were working on it.
Now that I'm up to Throne Magic, I returned to Magiclampoon to find... oh. Still blank. Not down. No 404s. No adverts as if their account expired. Just nothing. I've been Googling for answers for the past 30 minutes, but I can't find anything.
My first thought would be that Wizards contacted them because of some sort of copyright violation, and they were in the process of dealing with that. But their Facebook page still exists, and a blog is up that still links to their stuff. Last post was in March... and I think some of the last stuff posted was all repeats. All twitter posts end in March as well.
This is all very weird. It's a shame to lose MagicLampoon, too. Good stuff there. But comedy needs to be timely... I get that. It just seems like a real kick in the pants that Throne Magic was swallowed into whatever hole MagicLampoon sunk into.
Hey, awesome! It's a pity the monster creature type isn't supported anymore, eh? ;)
Congrats!