Poll: New Dual Land Cycle

[jatill]

The new set (Zendikar) has a cycle of Allied-color dual lands that do this:

This comes into play tapped. When this comes into play, gain 1 life.
T: Add R or B to your mana pool.

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/A ... ly/boab/56

So it's obviously strictly better then Urborg Volcan and friends. So should they replace them? You decide!

Incidentally, there is also a cycle of Enemy Fetchlands. These will be taking up (and deserving) 5 new slots.

[Salbei]

no need , seriously there are enough mana fixers for sealed available - and you won´t play these anywhere outside of sealed deck.

the enemy fetch lands are a different story - those are great.

[MalkolmX]

You should spend those slots adding Enemy fetchlands and Landfall dudes instead, the drawback of having them come into play tapped makes them unplayable in the Vintage Scenario in which this game is focused.

[somacat]

Might as well leave as-is, IMO... keep 8th Ed limited 'pure', since the new duals aren't really too relevant to constructed anyway with all the manafixing we already have, despite being strictly superior to the Coastal Tower cycle.

[Systral]

I'm with Malcolm and Salbei on this one, even though the new CIPT lands are better than the old ones I'd much rather just have the new enemy-color fetches take up precious spots. With fetch lands, original duals, shock lands, triple lands and assorted 5c Lands already in the game I can't see a reason for anyone to actually use these outside of highlander/BoW/499 decks.

[aww1979]

Those duals are pretty good, but I voted 'no add' because we can't spare 5 slots on more duals, and replacing cards will mess up peoples *.dck files who use Urborg Volcano and so on. Most of my two colour decks use those; for instance, a black red deck I make will have 4-ofs in Badlands, Bloodstained Mire, Blood Crypt, Urborg Volcano.

[Salbei]

hmm, when you play 2 colours 4 dual + 8 fetchies provide more than enough stability . you can even drop the dual count down to 2 to get a very bloodmoon safe manabase.if you need to play lots of monocolored spells with manacost like BB mixed with lots of WW (just an example) you would still be better off with adding Pools or simple a few more fetchlands.with the come into play tap lands you loose too much speed.(my oppinion)

i usually got like 5 decks in my gauntlet that use bloodmoon and another 10 with a playset of wastelands (some with cruicible of worlds along with them) - so it is just normal for me to ignore these speed-bump lands.

only if you plan to use spells with triple mono-manacost(made that term up, but i guess you know what i mean ... spells like erosion that cost UUU) it would make sense to use them (i would still prefer Reflecting Pool).

even for highlander decks i prefer to use the come into play lands that can produce 3 different mana.

the old come into play tapped "duals" make no sense outside of sealed deck unless you are playing with multiple sundering titans - and even then you got much better cardchoices available.

i wouldn´t care about them,but as long as the 2000 card barrier is present we better fill the slots with cards that are going to see play frequently.
on paper magic i only see them at casual players who cannot afford "real" duals. this isn´t an issue at the pc game so there is really no point to waste 5 slots.

enemy fetchlands are a complete different thing - i´d love to see the come into play tapped lands go for these(+ having 5 slots free for USEFUL stuff).

[Bog Wraith]

There are more then enough lands in the game right now. Lets use the few available slots that are left wisely!

[thedrigo]

I voted to change them, but in retrospect, if more lands were to be added to the game, I'd rather see the new fetchlands rather than these duals. I am therefore gonna change my vote to no add.

[jatill]

Those duals are pretty good, but I voted 'no add' because we can't spare 5 slots on more duals, and replacing cards will mess up peoples *.dck files who use Urborg Volcano and so on. Most of my two colour decks use those; for instance, a black red deck I make will have 4-ofs in Badlands, Bloodstained Mire, Blood Crypt, Urborg Volcano.

Doing a replace would make the files look weird (i.e. the cards would have the wrong name in the deck file), but the decks would work. All the lands would just be upgraded to the new versions.

[aww1979]

Doing a replace would make the files look weird (i.e. the cards would have the wrong name in the deck file), but the decks would work. All the lands would just be upgraded to the new versions.

Yeah, that's rather what I meant. Having a red/white fetchland replace Urborg Volcano, for instance, or whichever card replaced it.