Talk:Lorwyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The first announcement for Lorwyn (peanut) appeared on Arcana today, time to give it a wiki-page :) (Chakothee 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Contents

[edit] Four-set block

What about the speculation about this being a four-set block? --Rubbaducky42 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's new to me, do you have links of this speculation? MTG.com doesn't even have something as small as a codename for a set in between "Jelly" and "Live". -- Chakothee 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about....Sandwich? I think there's some speculation on the mtgs boards. --Rubbaducky42 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Rubbaducky42 on this one. I think it's a 4-set block. I mean, come on? Why would a duck lie to a person? The Ronin 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] mirrodin

Can anyone give a source for the comment on it being a mirrodin altered by the rifts? I can't find any quotes or references anywhere. 72.240.214.72 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any. It should be removed. ImbolcNight 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/planeswalkers/week1
"the effects of these rifts spread beyond Dominaria, affecting other planes in unexpected ways:

   * On Mirrodin, the plane's mana core destabilized and discharged five separate orbs of mana"

Sirconnorstack 13:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] set contents

Since all the standards/regulations/conforming that WP has built up inclines me not to edit pages, I'll leave it to others to include this new info.

In ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af171 ) right before the poll, it's announced Lorwyn will have a new "keyword action". Old keyword actions include: Attach, Counter, Regenerate, Sacrifice, Tap. These are some pretty fundamental components to the game.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.254.213 (talk • contribs) date|16:48, May 18, 2007 (UTC)}}

Done. Thanks for the great spot, 69.233.254.213. --Lifebaka 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] expansion symbol

Am I the only one who upon first seeing the expansion symbol thought "elf ear" rather than "leaf"? Is this worth mentioning or am I just odd?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.17.198 (talk • contribs)

I can see it, but it might be worth waiting until MTG.com begins showing preview cards, or we otherwise get a better sense of what sort of world Lorwyn is. I lean towards leaf, as an elf ear would not be as desciptive a symbol for a set. Of course, if you feel it is notable enough, go ahead and add it. --Lifebaka 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been rather a lot of speculation, most specifically on the mtgsalvation message Boards. Alas, it is just that, Speculation, and unfortunately really doesn't merit any kind of change to the article at such time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.173.22 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Final Sentence

"No further details have been officially provided by Wizards of the Coast."

Um...is this really necessary? It looks like filler and doesn't provide information...And anyway, isn't the article only supposed to have information officially provided by WOTC anyway? So an end of information would therefore be implicative of none further...Just a thought.

[edit] New Card Type

Is it more than just speculation to suggest that the new card type will be Planeswalker, given that it appears in Tarmogoyf's text box and Gatherer (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/) as a new card type? --138.38.152.186 09:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good bet. From Planeswalker: "It is implied at the end of the Future Sight novel that Planeswalkers as we have known them are no more. (...) Jeska sees that "that which is taken from the infinite" is the cause of the Rift fractures. She gives herself up to the Rift and appears to use the last of her power to bring low all other planeswalkers (much as Teferi was after containing the Shivan Rift) and return thier Sparks to the Multiverse, thereby healing the fractured superstructure and sealing the rift network. This allows The Mending to begin and a new era of mortal planeswalkers such as Venser and Rhada (though her potential was wasted)."
I see two possibilities: 1) it would be like Tribal, you will not find a pure tribal/planeswalker card, but Tribal Enchantments, Tribal Artifacts, Tribal Terrains, and Planeswalker Creature. (Karn 2.0, Planeswalker Artifact Creature - Golem ??? ). But I can't imagine a PW Enchantment or PW non-creature Artifact. Why add a type restrict to another type? It's just silly.
2) A vanguard-like card, that is not a creature, and affect all the game.

It says new card type.. doesn't that imply a whole new type? as opposed to a subtype like Artifact-Equipment or Legendary Creature? that's just what I though Elementalos 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't the place to discuss speculation. There's no shortage of MTG forums for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go - http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=85811&page=7 --138.38.152.186 13:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

as of aug 16 planeswalkers have been confirmed in the mcg.com feature article

[edit] Planeswalkers Section

There is way too much detail in that section. We don't need to re-post, in full, the entire set of new rules for Planeswalker cards. Mentioning that the rules have been released and linking to them would be enough. I have taken the liberty of making this edit. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Citing Sources and Speculation

206.173.169.131, you have recently been hindering efforts that Temporarily Insane has been making to purge from this article content that is either speculative in nature or is unsourced, often both. WP:CITE and WP:NOT#CBALL discourage these practices, and it is therefore in line with Wikipedia's policy to have such edits removed. Please desist such unproductive edits, so that Temporarily Insane may keep this article in line with policy. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning

The site magicdeckvortex.com is simply copying from mtgsalvation. mtgsalvation is not a good source as it is based on leaks and is therefore speculative (not to mention the majority of it is a forum, which is not acceptable as per WP:RS). magicdeckvortex is citing mtgsalvation, and so we cannot include that either. Scrye is valid, as it is a published magazine that has permission to print those card images. Hence, I am removing items sourced to magicdeckvortex or mtgsalvation, but not Scrye or Wizards. If you object, please state your reasons. Thank you. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Readded the mtgsalvation link. It's accurate enough to be present in the revealed cards section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.122.250 (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the mtgsalvation link, as you haven't really given any good reasons to keep it. However, I have readded the comment that InQuest published the full spoiler. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire set has been revealed. Theres no reason not to publish it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.122.250 (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

MTGSalvation is not a proper source. If you can find the INQuest or Scrye articles online then that would be an acceptable source for this article. --DBishop1984 16:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The info on mtgsal was finalized with the information from the inquest article. Its the same data, there's no reason one should be allowed and the other not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.109.44 (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clash Mechanic

Is "Clash" not a new mechanic as well? (players reveal the top card of their library with the highest converted mana cost "winning" the clash and potentially having additional card casting effects?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.185.99 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not confirmed yet by a reliable source. (Leaks/mtgsalvation are not reliable sources.) --Temporarily Insane (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I could have sworn there was an official preview card with Clash on it... android79 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, guess not. android79 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There was, Lash Out during the Japanese Nationals coverage of mtg.com. I guess it's somewhere in the Tournament center. 84.177.166.253 12:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Link - [1]. It's called a blog, but it's really more of a permanent site feature. 84.177.166.253 12:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wren's Run Packmaster

Looks like the art shown here is the one for the prerelease promo card. Note the date in the lower right hand corner of the art box. --DBishop1984 12:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shapeshifter

The article says that there is a shapeshifter lord, but I can't find it. Its not in the spoiler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.18.71 (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they really promissed "a Shapeshifter lord" in the source cited. But, what is the relevance of that for this article? How a non-player will understand this? What this mean precisely, has the old Lord creature subtype is now gone?
I can't search for this right now, but I think there is some Shapeshifter that gives a bonus to all other Shapeshifter creatures, or maybe to all creatures with the Changeling keyword. Is this a "lord"? 200.255.9.38 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I can only assume the card the author was referring to was Shapesharer, as it's the only one that mentions Shapeshifters, as opposed to Mirror Entity, which makes everything a Shapeshifter. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but I still don't think this citation is needed in the article. 200.255.9.38 13:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)