This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The first announcement for Lorwyn (peanut) appeared on Arcana today, time to give it a wiki-page :) ( Chakothee 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
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)
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)
"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)
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)}}
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv ( talk) 18:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lorwyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Every three hundred what? Years? Some regularly occuring event that I overlooked? Perpetual daytime would suggest the measurement of time is different from Earth, so years might not fit, else I'd just edit it myself.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The first announcement for Lorwyn (peanut) appeared on Arcana today, time to give it a wiki-page :) ( Chakothee 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
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)
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)
"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)
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)}}
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv ( talk) 18:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lorwyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Every three hundred what? Years? Some regularly occuring event that I overlooked? Perpetual daytime would suggest the measurement of time is different from Earth, so years might not fit, else I'd just edit it myself.