jump to navigation

Predicting 11th Edition Part 2 April 10, 2009

Posted by James in : all, fake cards, speculation , trackback

I already wrote an article about what the dual lands of 11th Edition (Magic 2010) might look like here, but there are many other interesting ideas for dual lands. In this article I will present some of the more interesting ideas that other people have thought of. I will write another article that presents my own ideas.

Not any dual land idea can qualify for inclusion in 11th Edition. We will want dual lands that attempt to live up to certain ideals. Some of these ideals were presented in these two recent articles published by Wizards of the Coast: here and here.

  1. The dual lands can produce two different colors of mana.
  2. The dual lands are”powerful” and “awesome.”
  3. The dual land are friendly to risk-averse players. It won’t cause pain.
  4. The dual lands won’t (always) come into play tapped. This restriction is overused.
  5. The dual lands will be elegant.
  6. The dual lands won’t be “strictly” better than basic lands. (Being a nonbasic land is not considered to be a drawback, and having basic land types are not considered to be a bonus.)
  7. The dual lands will be equally good in each kind of deck.
  8. The dual lands shouldn’t be too time consuming.

The following ideas were thought of by other people:

rolling foothills

Rolling Foothills is fairly elegant, but (1) it’s strictly better than a basic land, (2) it isn’t a dual land, and (3) it can be time consuming.

riverside forest

Riverside Forest is just as elegant as pain lands, but it might not support each deck equally. Riverside Forest can help control decks play instants and some decks might be able to deal with that better than others.


Marsh is the most plausible card idea anyone else has come up with. Note that this drawback isn’t meaningless because you might want to play an artifact or a card of a third color. If you don’t have any black or green cards in your hand, then it will come into play tapped.

Lakeside Mountain has a minimal drawback if you have an instant or land in your hand to remove, but it can still be a painful drawback if (a) you have no cards in hand and you need the land for abilities or (b) you need to play two or more creatures that turn but you have to remove one of them from the game.


1. Recoculous.com: Magic the Gathering Articles » Predicting 11th Edition (Magic 2010) - April 10, 2009

[…] […]

2. Jonathan - April 10, 2009

I enjoyed this and the previous article. I think Lakeside Ruins makes a lot of sense (and you can have your own discussion in your head about depletion counters being better for one deck type or another) but I think it’s too much like Gemstone Mine for WoTC to intentionally get us excited about. It’s not so revolutionary that they would leak information about it in the manner that they have. It is not a “new dual” as much as it is a variation on a previous theme.
I don’t have any preferences or predictions, but I do have to say that I gave an approving “ahh” when I saw Riverside Forest, although it would probably have to read “each opponent” rather than each player. Though I’m casting my vote for Riverside Forest because of my personal preference (always liked Eladamri’s Vineyard), I don’t think R&D would see as a sufficient enough downside; for most games, can you imagine an opponent needing one ‘colorless’ at times you dictate?
good articles, great art!

3. James - April 10, 2009


Thank you for the post. The reason Riverside Forest says “each player” is because it gives you a mana and it can give each opponent mana as well.

I personally like the drawbacks to be minimal because these lands are supposed to be “powerful” and so forth. In a couple days I will present my newer ideas, which involve pretty minimal drawbacks.

4. michael - April 10, 2009

The problem I have with Marsh and Lakeside Mountain is that they have basic land types. That just will not happen. The same text could be uxed verbatim, but they will not have basic land types. period.

5. Jonathan - April 10, 2009

Why wouldn’t they have basic land types? I think James said it properly: “(Being a nonbasic land is not considered to be a drawback, and having basic land types are not considered to be a bonus.)”
Do you think it’s too beneficial to have the split (forest/swamp) basic land type?

6. michael - April 10, 2009

In a vacuum, that is probably true. However, there are a lot of cards that interact with basic land types and if these have basic land types, it makes them many times more powerful than if they do not.

Nonbasic with basic land types IS a bonus.
Nonbasic, like Pain Lands, mean no drawback (other than the 4-of)
Basics do not have a bonus other than some cards care that a land is basic.

It is when you combine the two that you get something special which is what makes the Original duals and the Ravnica shocklands so good.
Imagine for a second if ravnica duals didn’t have basic lands types. A turn 1 Stomping Ground into Kird Ape is not as scary.

Shard Convergence, a standard legal card, lets you look for lands with basic land types. This card is either an argument for or against basic land types on the M10 duals depending on how you look at it. One could say it is forshadowing what is to come, and one could also say they were careful to not allow shenanegans.

7. James - April 10, 2009

Yes, but Wizards of the Coast wants to treat this like it is in a vacuum. Boil will destroy nonbasic lands with the land type “Island.” There can be benefits and punishments involving land types.

More importantly: People thought the Shocklands would be reprinted. Shocklands had basic land types and they were probably better than pain lands even without the land types. Why can’t the new duals also have basic land types?

8. michael - April 13, 2009

I am not saying it is impossible, just highly unlikely. I would be extremely shocked if they did. The biggest reason is they would need reminder text (which creates a non-concern that the FOIL versions would be even more desirable since it wouldn’t have that).

Also, putting basic land types just be definition makes the card better. It restricts what WotC can print for standard if they do not want people using search land type things (it will also probably cause questions about Terramorphic Expanse since the lands have basic types…some new players could get confuzzled).

It is just my opinion that it will not happen.

9. Recoculous.com: Magic the Gathering Articles » Will Beta Dual Lands Come Back? - April 17, 2009

[…] Mark Rosewater admitted here that “dual lands’ design space is one that we’ve mined pretty heavily and thus becomes harder and harder to find new designs for.” This implies that we have probably seen at least half of the “awesome” dual land ideas. Many people have tried to guess what the dual lands might look like in the future at the mtgsalvation forums, but only a few of the ideas seem to be awesome and powerful. Only these ideas seemed to “wow” anyone. Take a look at them here. […]

10. Recoculous.com: Magic the Gathering Articles » Zendikar: First Impressions - September 6, 2009

[…] An obvious way to make a set a money-grab is to give it a power creep. This is an easy way to make sure a set sells and makes the company money. I don’t know what ever makes Wizards of the Coast decide when it’s time to make a set no one will want with almost no cards worth money, such as Champions of Kamigawa, but they seem to have given that up for the time being. Ravnica had shock dual lands; Timespiral had timeshifted rares; Lorwyn had powerful tribal creatures and planeswalkers; Shadowmoor had powerful filter dual lands; Shards of Alara gave us five color control, Bant, and Jund; Magic 2010 gave us new dual lands, planeswalkers, and lots of other goodies; and now Zendikar has reached the peak with more power creep and enemy colored fetch lands. […]