[OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Yeah! Finally get to make one of these!

Even though the cards spoiled may be fake...

First up, we have a big friend for Newlamog:

http://i.imgur.com/RIvZJbi.png

Kozilek, the Great Distortion
8<><>
Legendary Creature - Eldrazi Titan

When you cast Kozilek, the Great Distortion if you have fewer than seven cards in hand, draw cards equal to the difference.

Menace

Discard a card with converted mana cost X: Counter target spell with converted mana cost X.

What exactly is <> mana? Nobody is really sure at the moment. People speculate that the diamond symbol represents a cost that must be paid with specifically colorless mana (i.e. not colored mana) boosting the utility of lands that tap for colorless. Like, perhaps, this one:

http://i.imgur.com/CO1Ue17.png

Wastes
Basic Land

A new type of basic land that doesn't have a subtype and carries an extremely generic name that could fit on any plane. It's not quite "Barry's Land" (i.e. a colorless basic that had a subtype to power up Domain, but it is close.

Edit: Looks like there is a third possible spoiler, though this one seems highly likely to be fake.

http://i.imgur.com/aruU9HU.png

Mirrorpool
Land

Mirrorpool enters the battlefield tapped

Tap: Add <> to your mana pool

2<>, Tap, Sacrifice Mirrorpool: Copy target instant or sorcery spell you control. You may choose new targets for the copy.

4<>, Tap, Sacrifice Mirrorpool: Put a token onto the battlefield that is a copy of target creature you control.

This seems a little off, especially given that it is a Mythic, non-Legendary utility land. Plus, I really hope <> mana isn't something highly parasitic like Snow mana and this card tends to point towards that.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

Discard a card with converted mana cost X: Counter target spell with converted mana cost X

Either weird wording or fake.

For example Counterbalance: Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may reveal the top card of your library. If you do, counter that spell if it has the same converted mana cost as the revealed card.

Normal wording would be:

Discard a card:Counter target spell if it has the same cmc as the discarded card.

Edit: Ok its not exactly the same... with my wording you can use it as discard outlet!

[phonics]

Diamond lands = snow lands 2: electric boogaloo?

[Barook]

The Kozilek art couldn't be found on the internet before, so I suspect the cards to be real, at least Kozilek and Wastes.

That said, this is horrible. Yet another extremely parasitic mechanic.

[into_play]

Discard a card with converted mana cost X: Counter target spell with converted mana cost X

Either weird wording or fake.

For example Counterbalance: Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may reveal the top card of your library. If you do, counter that spell if it has the same converted mana cost as the revealed card.

Normal wording would be:

Discard a card:Counter target spell if it has the same cmc as the discarded card.

Edit: Ok its not exactly the same... with my wording you can use it as discard outlet!

Knollspine Invocation has a similar wording.

For Mirrorpool, I have to wonder why the card wouldn't just say "Tap: Add 1 to your mana pool." If the new mana symbol really means mana that needs to be colorless, then this land doesn't seem all that great for mana production.

All interesting if real though.

[Barook]

Knollspine Invocation has a similar wording.

For Mirrorpool, I have to wonder why the card wouldn't just say "Tap: Add 1 to your mana pool." If the new mana symbol really means mana that needs to be colorless, then this land doesn't seem all that great for mana production.

All interesting if real though.

I like this explanation:

in cost: generic mana. Can be paid with any color
Until Onslaught: "Add one colorless mana to your mana pool". Can be used to pay generic costs.
After Onslaught: "Add to your mana pool". in mana producers is colorless mana that can be used to pay generic mana costs.
After Oath:
in cost: generic mana. Can be paid with any color or colorless
{d} in cost: colorless mana. Can only be paid with colorless mana.
{d} in producers: colorless mana. Can pay generic and colorless costs.
( in producers: No longer exists, errata to {d})

Sounds plausible. At the very least, this "new" mana explains the high amount of colorless lands in Standard which made no fucking sense in a heavily-multicolored Standard format.

[jrsthethird]

When I was 9 and realized that the white mana symbols were different between Revised and 4th Edition, and my cousin said that's because the old symbol meant colorless mana. I guess he was on to something, after all.

[Dice_Box]

Knollspine Invocation has a similar wording.

For Mirrorpool, I have to wonder why the card wouldn't just say "Tap: Add 1 to your mana pool." If the new mana symbol really means mana that needs to be colorless, then this land doesn't seem all that great for mana production.

All interesting if real though.

If your going to have a new symbol, might as well use it.

[Gheizen64]

I don't see how this is parasitic. It's just a new way to indicate (must be paid with colorless) in mana costs and a new way to say on producers. It's non parasitic at all, if anything, this work amazingly with a lot of old cards that produce colorless mana because colorless is now a bit better since it can pay for some specific costs.

[Dice_Box]

Assuming that's what it is. It could actually be a new land type that just happens to be colourless. Right now, we just don't know.

[death]

This effectively re-introduce colorless as sixth color.

[H]

Am I the only one who thinks that, if this is real, Kozilek is near Griselbrand-level absurd?

[rufus]

Am I the only one who thinks that, if this is real, Kozilek is near Griselbrand-level absurd?

IMO Emrakul is stronger and it's not particularly close.

[Whitefaces]

IMO Emrakul is stronger and it's not particularly close.

Sure, but Emrakul can't be reanimated.

[Echelon]

Sure, but Emrakul can't be reanimated.

Tin Fins would like to have a word with you, good sir. The onions they burst are quite often spaghetti monster shaped.

[maharis]

Am I the only one who thinks that, if this is real, Kozilek is near Griselbrand-level absurd?

Maybe in a post deck but it doesn't trigger off S&T/Reanimation. (And then the post deck still has to produce &diams;️&diams;️ or whatever.)

If you have a way to draw enough cards to make the counter ability matter without the cast trigger, you can probably win with any other 12/12.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Blatantly stealing information from Salvation, but it has pretty much convinced me Wastes is real:


from Skitterskin


from Kozilek's Sentinel

Looks like Kozilek and her brood change the landscape to colorless.

[GundamGuy]

Assuming that's what it is. It could actually be a new land type that just happens to be colourless. Right now, we just don't know.

Since the lands seem to point to tapping for <> mana I'm inclined to think that <> is not just simply the same thing as <> must be mana.

If all we had seen were cards with <> in the costs then <> == Has to be paid with colorless mana from any colorless source would make sense... but since we've now got lands that produce <> I'm not sure it's safe to assume this about how <> mana works. If it were just a restriction to require the use of colorless mana there would be no need to put Tap: Add <> on a card.

Also a part of me really wants these to be fake but fears they are actually real...

[Cire]

I like the interpretation that <> means "must be paid in colorless mana" - however, the problem with that interpretation is why would the land produce <>, wouldn't producing (1) be just as good?

[Barook]

@Ace/Homebrew: This leaves up the question why Kozilek's brood shits out Bismuth:



Edit:

I like the interpretation that <> means "must be paid in colorless mana" - however, the problem with that interpretation is why would the land produce <>, wouldn't producing (1) be just as good?

Maybe all instances of producers gets errated to <>. Ancient Tomb would produce <><> in that case.