D&D 5E (2024) Lorwyn Eclipsed, the MtG set releases January 2026, could tge Lorwyn D&D be released concurrently?

[Tonguez]

I want Noggles to be playable too, they feel the most unique, but still practical to be played.

Yeah Noggles are cool - should we make the donkeyheaded Kender mwahaha

 

[Staffan]

I disagree that Lorwyn/Shadowmoor didn’t have strong mechanical identities. However, what you’re probably picking up on is that they released around the time that the “New World Order” design paradigm was starting to be put into practice.

That's part of it. But compare Lorwyn to Bloomburrow. Both have a focus on creature types, but in Bloomburrow each featured creature type has its own theme – e.g. frogs have lots of bounce/flicker effects (letting them abuse enter-the-battlefield triggers), bats have many effects based around gaining or losing life, rats want Threshold (7 cards in graveyard) to turn various powers on, and so on.

In Lorwyn, cards pretty much just did what their colors always do, with the addition of "creature type matters". In other words, Kithkin cards didn't do anything green or white didn't already do, but many of their cards said something like "Other Kithkin creatures you control get +1/+1" or "As an additional cost to cast this, reveal a Kithkin creature from your hand or pay 3." The set as a whole certainly had mechanical identity, but not in the sense of "Kithkin do X and Elves to Y." I think the closest the set comes to that is the non-Flamekin Elementals who usually had Evoke (creatures you could cast for a lower-than-normal cost which would then self-destruct when they ETB, but they usually had neat ETB effects), and that wasn't really something you could build a deck around.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's part of it. But compare Lorwyn to Bloomburrow. Both have a focus on creature types, but in Bloomburrow each featured creature type has its own theme – e.g. frogs have lots of bounce/flicker effects (letting them abuse enter-the-battlefield triggers), bats have many effects based around gaining or losing life, rats want Threshold (7 cards in graveyard) to turn various powers on, and so on.

In Lorwyn, cards pretty much just did what their colors always do, with the addition of "creature type matters". In other words, Kithkin cards didn't do anything green or white didn't already do, but many of their cards said something like "Other Kithkin creatures you control get +1/+1" or "As an additional cost to cast this, reveal a Kithkin creature from your hand or pay 3." The set as a whole certainly had mechanical identity, but not in the sense of "Kithkin do X and Elves to Y." I think the closest the set comes to that is the non-Flamekin Elementals who usually had Evoke (creatures you could cast for a lower-than-normal cost which would then self-destruct when they ETB, but they usually had neat ETB effects), and that wasn't really something you could build a deck around.

Each type absolutely had specific mechanics, they were just kept simple because of NWO. Kithkin buffed other Kithkin. Giants… also buffed Kithkin, and sometimes Boggarts. Merfolk had islanswalk and turned lands to islands. Faeries had flash and a lot of enters the battlefield triggers. Boggarts wanted to be sacrificed. Flamekin came in red but provided mana fixing in all colors to enable use of non-Flamekin elementals in a base-red elemental deck. Elves produced tons of tokens. Treefolk cared about having high-toughness stat lines. These weren’t keyword abilities, but again, that’s because Wizards’ design directive was actively pushing to decrease cognitive overload, and was therefore trying to keep the number of non-evergreen keywords in each set low. Not to mention the fact that the species types needed to be able to synergize both with other cards of the same species, but also potentially with other cards with the same class type, which might be in a different color combination. Highly specific species type themes would have hurt that interoperability.

Bloomburrow was designed post-FIRE, when the directive was exactly the opposite: make each individual card “fun, inviting, replayable, and exciting,” even if that meant making them more complex. By Bloomburrow, they had started printing text on cards that look like keywords but have no actual mechanical function, they just provide flavor context to the following rules text. The design team was accordingly much more able to give every creature type not only general design direction, but highly specific, complex mechanical themes.

 

[Staffan]

Each type absolutely had specific mechanics, they were just kept simple because of NWO. Kithkin buffed other Kithkin. Giants… also buffed Kithkin, and sometimes Boggarts. Merfolk had islanswalk and turned lands to islands. Faeries had flash and a lot of enters the battlefield triggers. Boggarts wanted to be sacrificed. Flamekin came in red but provided mana fixing in all colors to enable use of non-Flamekin elementals in a base-red elemental deck. Elves produced tons of tokens. Treefolk cared about having high-toughness stat lines. These weren’t keyword abilities, but again, that’s because Wizards’ design directive was actively pushing to decrease cognitive overload, and was therefore trying to keep the number of non-evergreen keywords in each set low. Not to mention the fact that the species types needed to be able to synergize both with other cards of the same species, but also potentially with other cards with the same class type, which might be in a different color combination. Highly specific species type themes would have hurt that interoperability.

Sure, but those things are all standard things for those colors to do. Lords have been around since Alpha, and Lorwyn has lords for most creature types (Wizened Cenn for Kithkin, Merrow Reejerey for Merfolk, Scion of Oona for Faeries, Mad Auntie for Goblins, Sunrise Sovereign for Giants, Imperious Perfect for Elves, Timber Protector for Treefolk, and Incandescent Soulstoke for Elementals). I'll grant you that there were some mild themes for goblins (sacrifice effects, supported by a small number of regrowth effects), faeries (ETB triggers), and merfolk (tap/untap), but those weren't all that strong.

And the featured mechanics of the set were found all over the place. Clash, Champion, and Evoke were found in all colors, and the whole point of the Changeling mechanic was to be all over the place filling up creature type counts for all types.

By Bloomburrow, they had started printing text on cards that look like keywords but have no actual mechanical function, they just provide flavor context to the following rules text. The design team was accordingly much more able to give every creature type not only general design direction, but highly specific, complex mechanical themes.

Agreed that ability words makes it much easier to identify mechanical themes in a set.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, but those things are all standard things for those colors to do. Lords have been around since Alpha, and Lorwyn has lords for most creature types (Wizened Cenn for Kithkin, Merrow Reejerey for Merfolk, Scion of Oona for Faeries, Mad Auntie for Goblins, Sunrise Sovereign for Giants, Imperious Perfect for Elves, Timber Protector for Treefolk, and Incandescent Soulstoke for Elementals). I'll grant you that there were some mild themes for goblins (sacrifice effects, supported by a small number of regrowth effects), faeries (ETB triggers), and merfolk (tap/untap), but those weren't all that strong.

Right, so like I said, each type had its own mechanical themes, they were just very broad and simple themes, in keeping with NWO.

And the featured mechanics of the set were found all over the place. Clash, Champion, and Evoke were found in all colors, and the whole point of the Changeling mechanic was to be all over the place filling up creature type counts for all types.

That was, again, part of NWO because they were limited in the number of keyword mechanics they were able to introduce per set, and to preserve interoperability between different type axies.

Agreed that ability words makes it much easier to identify mechanical themes in a set.

My point was to emphasize the difference in design principles between then and now. We’ve gone from limiting the number of non-evergreen keywords in a set to keep down on cognitive overload, to now making up one-off “keywords” that don’t do anything.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

That's part of it. But compare Lorwyn to Bloomburrow. Both have a focus on creature types, but in Bloomburrow each featured creature type has its own theme – e.g. frogs have lots of bounce/flicker effects (letting them abuse enter-the-battlefield triggers), bats have many effects based around gaining or losing life, rats want Threshold (7 cards in graveyard) to turn various powers on, and so on.

In Lorwyn, cards pretty much just did what their colors always do, with the addition of "creature type matters". In other words, Kithkin cards didn't do anything green or white didn't already do, but many of their cards said something like "Other Kithkin creatures you control get +1/+1" or "As an additional cost to cast this, reveal a Kithkin creature from your hand or pay 3." The set as a whole certainly had mechanical identity, but not in the sense of "Kithkin do X and Elves to Y." I think the closest the set comes to that is the non-Flamekin Elementals who usually had Evoke (creatures you could cast for a lower-than-normal cost which would then self-destruct when they ETB, but they usually had neat ETB effects), and that wasn't really something you could build a deck around.

Still Spice8rack's best video.

 

[Charlaquin]

Still Spice8rack's best video.

I dunno. I love Lorwyn and I love this video, but Spice’s best is a very high bar. I’d rank “Madness, Memory, Mill, and Discard” as better for sure. “Anarchism and Police Abolition” is another top contender. “Magic: the Gathering and the Death of the Future” is the best take on the Universes Beyond situation on YouTube if not on the internet period. I’m also quite partial to “Yawgmoth: the Scientific Priestcraft of Eugenics.”