[OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

[Lemnear]

My thoughts exactly.

Nothing new in a set - 'It's all rehashes, just kicker with a stupider name!'

Totally new design in the set - 'It's bullshit, they can't even stay consistent in their rehashes!'

<> is obviously just kicker on land.

"Totally New Design" by either renaming Snow or colorless mana? Are you serious?

edit: WotC would fare a lot better if they did not feel forced to introduce 500+ "new" cards and like a dozen of mechanics each year. I don't get why they revisit planes, but don't bother to pickup the mechanics which made the expansions popular in the first place

[Whitefaces]

"Totally New Design" by either renaming Snow or colorless mana? Are you serious?

edit: WotC would fare a lot better if they did not feel forced to introduce 500+ "new" cards and like a dozen of mechanics each year. I don't get why they revisit planes, but don't bother to pickup the mechanics which made the expansions popular in the first place

If it's not so new then what's the big deal? We don't even know exactly what it is yet, either, it's all speculation. And with speculation comes whining and kicking.

[Dice_Box]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?

[Barook]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?

I think it has potential to do cool things, but I fear it's going to be another waste of unused design space.

[Lemnear]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?

In before someone suggest a random fatty in this expansion for Elves! XD

[TsumiBand]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?

I rather like it, on the whole.

[Dice_Box]

I think it has potential to do cool things, but I fear it's going to be another waste of unused design space.

I think if your adding in a new type of Basic, you make sure it can be used. Making it backwards compatible with Colourless land sources, visiting places known for Artifact Spells (we can visit a plain more than twice...) and just using it generally from here on out as a "Sixth Colour" I don't see as a waste of space.

This is easy to make work, if they fuck this, it's on them. This to me seems to easy to make work though. If I was thinking long term additions to the game, I would go for backwards compatibly before I would try Snow lands again.

[GundamGuy]

I think if your adding in a new type of Basic, you make sure it can be used. Making it backwards compatible with Colourless land sources, visiting places known for Artifact Spells (we can visit a plain more than twice...) and just using it generally from here on out as a "Sixth Colour" I don't see as a waste of space.

This is easy to make work, if they fuck this, it's on them. This to me seems to easy to make work though. If I was thinking long term additions to the game, I would go for backwards compatibly before I would try Snow lands again.

IMO if it's just a colorless basic, it's pretty underpowered since I can just play a deck full of lands that come into play untapped and have Tap: Add (or D) plus other abilities. Other then the risk of Blood Moon (wizards says they don't test for older formats...) why not?

It's such a draw back that I have to play Wastelands, Ports, and Caverns of Souls in my "colorless creature" deck.

[Cire]

It's such a draw back that I have to play Wastelands, Ports, and Caverns of Souls in my "colorless creature" deck.

I think the draw back is if they print cards like Pithing Needle or Cage, that have D mana costs. Decks that play those type of cards SB are already triple colored and won't be able to play those colorless lands easily. The same goes for any powerful artifact with D in the cost. Current two colored decks would be able to afford to play them, while current three colored deck probably wont.

[Barook]

I think the draw back is if they print cards like Pithing Needle or Cage, that have D mana costs. Decks that play those type of cards SB are already triple colored and won't be able to play those colorless lands easily. The same goes for any powerful artifact with D in the cost. Current two colored decks would be able to afford to play them, while current three colored deck probably wont.

Wouldn't D artifacts be pretty much the same as colored artifacts as far as gameplay is concerned? I wouldn't be worried too much about them going into that direction.

[Cire]

Wouldn't D artifacts be pretty much the same as colored artifacts as far as gameplay is concerned? I wouldn't be worried too much about them going into that direction.

Yes - except they would be in a "color" that decks don't regularly have access to (only decks that play wastelands, ports, tomb, or city of traitors). . . and instead of calling them artifacts - let's just say artifact like edlrazi. I don't know - but I hope you get what I'm saying. If they print a good D card, I can only see it being taken advantage of by decks that are currently 2 colored or are already running at least 8 of those aforementioned colorless lands. Three colored decks probably can't afford the colorless lands to be able to run any potentially good D card.

[Dice_Box]

Wouldn't D artifacts be pretty much the same as colored artifacts as far as gameplay is concerned? I wouldn't be worried too much about them going into that direction.

Yes, but you would have to build around them as you go. If they don't print Fetches for Wastes, then the fun is really on. Because at that point you can make a card desirable and force people to actually build mana bases to support it.

[TsumiBand]

Yeah, like - okay so you can include Wastes and Ports, but the obvious issue here is that they don't work with fetchlands and if you're using them for their ability you're not using them to cast D spells. So it isn't just "hurp play it with Wastelands derp" because you actually have to treat D like it's a fucking color now, and one that doesn't appear to work too well with the gamut of mana fixers we're used to entertaining.

The upshot of a D artifact is that it could actually be costed fairly aggressively without fear of it being run in "the wrong colors" which was classically a problem with old artifact creatures that didn't have "Affinity" scribbled on them.

As a strawman example -- Think of what it means when something like "Arcbound Ravager 2.0" costs DD and can't be cast using Mox Opal or Glimmervoid -- or for that matter, most of the lands in a classic Affinity deck. You have to use Ancient Tomb or Darksteel Citadel or some other kind of mana fixing.

[jrsthethird]

Cards whose stock may rise if there are playable D cards in Legacy:

Pain Lands
Filter Lands
Grove of the Burnwillows
Grand Coliseum
Nimbus Maze
Tainted Isle and others
Tarnished Citadel
Tendo Ice Bridge

Obviously some of these are better than others. Tainted lands are phenomenal for D cards in any B/x deck, and Nimbus Maze is better than any of the nonblack alternatives as there's absolutely no drawback to getting colored mana if necessary if you have a Tundra. Hopefully they would make a cycle out of it, but the black versions are already outclassed by the Tainted lands.

[TheG]

With "wastes" basic land introduction finally extrapalanar lens becomes a mana doubler for colorless decks.

I hope they errata <> mana as a "color" (instead of the current colorless = no color = generic mana) to implement also gauntlet of might and caged sun for <> decks

[jrsthethird]

With "wastes" basic land introduction finally extrapalanar lens becomes a mana doubler for colorless decks.

It could still have been a doubler for Mishra's Factory or any other colorless land you use, but obviously it's more effective if you can run more than 4 of said land (especially since you exile the first one).

I hope they errata <> mana as a "color" (instead of the current colorless = no color = generic mana) to implement also gauntlet of might and caged sun for <> decks

OH GOD NO.

This would never happen. All the same issues with them defining a new Basic Land type exist with them defining a new color. Every card that references colors would have to reference a sixth one, and any older card that was printed with the choice of 5 colors would have it's functionality changed to now affect colorless cards. This was covered to great lengths in the Barry's Land article I posted many pages ago (Google Barry's Land and it'll pop up).

Not to mention "the current colorless = no color = generic mana" you state is tautologically incorrect. Colorless mana and generic mana are defined differently in the rules, so there is no way they are currently equivalent. What is confusing you is the fact that can stand for colorless or generic mana:

In costs, is generic mana; i.e. mana of any color (or colorless) can be spent to pay it.
In mana abilities, is colorless mana; i.e. mana that can only be spent to pay generic mana costs (but not colored).

The whole introduction of the <> symbol is to finally define and distinguish a difference between colorless and generic mana.

-------------

I feel like I'm either beating a dead horse here, or people are just too lazy to read the whole damn thread.

[Blastoderm]

Edit: deleted. Discussed already.

[TsumiBand]

With "wastes" basic land introduction finally extrapalanar lens becomes a mana doubler for colorless decks.

I hope they errata <> mana as a "color" (instead of the current colorless = no color = generic mana) to implement also gauntlet of might and caged sun for <> decks

Emphasis mine -- I'm not sure whether you meant this as a reference to the mistake or as an actual mistake on your part, but this is pretty much exactly why this change is a good idea, as "colorless mana" !== "generic mana" by a long shot. You'll never have "generic mana" in your pool because it isn't a type of mana, just like you can't have or "Phyrexian mana" in your mana pool, because these are costs, not payments.

As for making colorless "a color" for the purposes of selecting a color (City of Brass, Glimmervoid, etc), that would be quite counterintuitive and I hope they do not do this. Defining colorless as a color is a bit like redefining literal to mean figurative, and I mean -- honestly, who would go and do that.

[GundamGuy]

Yeah, like - okay so you can include Wastes and Ports, but the obvious issue here is that they don't work with fetchlands and if you're using them for their ability you're not using them to cast D spells. So it isn't just "hurp play it with Wastelands derp" because you actually have to treat D like it's a fucking color now, and one that doesn't appear to work too well with the gamut of mana fixers we're used to entertaining.

Decks that currently run Wastes (wait we can't just call it wastes now right, since that's a actually the name of a card... ) and Port don't seem to have any trouble using it to pay for the generic portion of a spell, and getting value out of the other abilities...

I just don't see it as that huge a draw back.

Yes you can't run it with fixers but I'm not sure there is any reason to run it with fixers as it stands right now. Maybe when more D spells are spoiled we'll see more, but if anything it's going to be for a handful of cards very few of which I think we'll be legacy playable anyway.

In costs, is generic mana; i.e. mana of any color (or colorless) can be spent to pay it.
In mana abilities, is colorless mana; i.e. mana that can only be spent to pay generic mana costs (but not colored).

The whole introduction of the <> symbol is to finally define and distinguish a difference between colorless and generic mana.

There was alwasy a difference between colorless and generic mana and people for the most part have understood that for over 20 years. When asked to explain it people might use the wrong words but people have totally been able to undertand that in a mana ability means two colorless mana, and in the cost of a spell or ability means two generic mana.

Now Yes if you are going to make people pay colorless mana to cast a spell you've got to introduce a new symbol for casting costs which represents this, but you don't have to change the symbol in mana production abilities. That's been the leap that everyone is just assuming this whole time which I think is a bit of a leap.

Mana production and Mana Cost have alwasy had different rules, and will continue to do so even if they change a symbol or two.

[death]

Also seems like a great time to re-print Wasteland