Page 3 of 49 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 970

Thread: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

  1. #41
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    If <> is indeed colorless mana (and not some weird Eldrazi-only 'non color mana' thing) then it does matter that a spell says 6<><>, because you COULD pay 2RRRRRR to cast new Kozilek, but you could NOT pay 1RRRRRRR. This puts an explicit requirement to produce colorless instead of which could be any color.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  2. #42

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    I think that <> cannot be paid with using colored mana is cool idea. So haters gonna hate.

  3. #43
    Sushi or Meat and Eggs
    Cire's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Posts

    2,252

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    What's upsetting me isn't that <> is "colorless" instead of generic, its that it implies a global errata of previous cards or else become a set-specific parasitic mechanic.

  4. #44
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Cire View Post
    What's upsetting me isn't that <> is "colorless" instead of generic, its that it implies a global errata of previous cards or else become a set-specific parasitic mechanic.
    ...I don't know that there's a whole lot of cards that this could apply to? Like there are cards like Soul Burn or whatever that have text requiring specific colors, this is just the inverse of that. It isn't exactly a huge overhaul to the game; generic mana costs aren't changing, most cards that have a generic cost aren't going to be subject to this at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  5. #45
    get outta here, humanity.
    iamajellydonut's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jun 2009
    Location

    Butugychag
    Posts

    2,031

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew View Post
    This artwork pretty clearly shows a Mountain that was corrupted.
    I think your biased.

    Clearly depicts a Swamp.

  6. #46
    Sushi or Meat and Eggs
    Cire's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Posts

    2,252

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    ...I don't know that there's a whole lot of cards that this could apply to? Like there are cards like Soul Burn or whatever that have text requiring specific colors, this is just the inverse of that. It isn't exactly a huge overhaul to the game; generic mana costs aren't changing, most cards that have a generic cost aren't going to be subject to this at all.
    I meant cards like Ancient Tomb - generic mana producers. Do they provide (2) or (<>)(<>) now. Because if they don't provide (<>) then in order to play any cards with (<>) in their mana cost you need to play the very specific cards that will be coming out in the next set - which is very parasitic, and the exact same criticism that people had against snow lands and Ice Age.

  7. #47
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Wow, what is with all the hate of snow-covered mechanic? I'm gonna chalk it up to the fact that all ye Ice Age haters are jealous that your favourite set can't screw with a new sets. Infernal Darkness and Ritual of Subdual - gotta love the old cards.

  8. #48
    plays Mountains
    Ace/Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Philadelphia Area
    Posts

    2,257

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by iamajellydonut View Post
    I think your biased.

    Clearly depicts a Swamp.
    It's pretty clearly

    You just got Valderamma'd!

    Can someone define the word 'parasitic' as it is being used in this thread?

  9. #49
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Cire View Post
    I meant cards like Ancient Tomb - generic mana producers. Do they provide (2) or (<>)(<>) now. Because if they don't provide (<>) then in order to play any cards with (<>) in their mana cost you need to play the very specific cards that will be coming out in the next set - which is very parasitic, and the exact same criticism that people had against snow lands and Ice Age.
    Well I know we're in speculative territory right now, but respectfully I do not think <> is produced, so much as it is simply a way of saying "only colorless mana need apply". I find it hard to believe that they would add what's functionally a sixth color - even if it is a variant of colorless mana - after 25 years. Like, that's even more of an upheaval than all the new card types and supertypes they've messed with previously, as it has implications with aspects of the game that weren't even designed with extra land types in mind (Domain effects come to mind but I'm sure a comprehensive list has been accrued by some pedant over the years).

    That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana. I mean the alternative is to just have a on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  10. #50
    Site Contributor

    Join Date

    Jun 2013
    Location

    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts

    1,658

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew View Post
    Can someone define the word 'parasitic' as it is being used in this thread?
    Seconded.

    Also, I'm still skeptical about this stuff being real. If it is real, I hope that it works like wcm8 suggested in thatbit provides mana for 'colored' cards with Devoid. If that's true, then it's really no different from Devoid in that it's not a goos mehanic but it'll be irrelevant for non-Standard, non- Limited formats

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana. I mean the alternative is to just have a on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.
    I hope this is the real reason if this is real.

  11. #51
    plays Mountains
    Ace/Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Philadelphia Area
    Posts

    2,257

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by btm10 View Post
    Seconded.
    I looked it up:

    In Magic: the Gathering, a mechanic is considered parasitic if it is squanched without being schwifty.

  12. #52
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2007
    Location

    Italy, Eternal
    Posts

    1,848

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Parasitic mean that it's a new mechanic that work strictly with itself and little to nothing else. Like for example... umh... grandeur i think it's the most parasitic mechanic possible since it interact ONLY with one card. Ingest is also parasitic because it does mostly nothing with like all but a dozen cards in all of magic, which are all in BFZ.

    A non parasitic mechanic is something that work with most of magic cards, like threshold, spell mastery, etc...

    Did i get trolled?

  13. #53
    plays Mountains
    Ace/Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Philadelphia Area
    Posts

    2,257

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gheizen64 View Post
    Did i get trolled?

    You just got Valderamma'd!




    Nah, I was legit asking.

  14. #54

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    ...
    That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana. I mean the alternative is to just have a on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.
    Lots of cards already use that symbol for generic mana costs. It would break the land mana symbol - card mana symbol symmetry too.

  15. #55
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    It shouldn't be forgotten that BFZ was supposed to be a three set block, which then got distilled down to two sets once they decided on the policy change.

    Supposing this is real, it could be that the last two sets were made to explore <> but now we will only be getting a condensed one.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  16. #56
    Is Cancer

    Join Date

    Jul 2014
    Posts

    1,146

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Gheizen64 View Post
    Ingest is also parasitic because it does mostly nothing with like all but a dozen cards in all of magic, which are all in BFZ. :
    No it's not; Ingest is all upside that moves you directly towards an alternate win condition (milling out.)

    Better examples are:
    * Kamigawa Spirits: the upside is gated by playing spirits/arcane (which are not terribly common)
    * Splice: The upside is gated by playing Arcane spells (which are not common)
    * Soulshift: The upside is gated by playing enough spirits to use it
    * Infect: The alternate win condition only works with other cards that house that alternate win condition; which are very few. The -1/-1 counter aspect however is not parasitic since it's always good and doesn't require others to be good.
    * Tribal (not the card type): If the cards only work with Goblins, for example, the upside is gated by goblins. However, there are enough of them that it's not terrible to indulge in it a bit.

    A good test for parasitism is if you can play the card in commander without catering to it. Thief of Hope, for example, is total garbage without changling, spirit, and/or arcane spells in high volume. Goblin Warchief is garbage without a bunch of Goblins. but, Goblin Rabblemaster is fine by himself. As is Bloodghast.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nestalim View Post
    Wrong. Gideon Emblem protect you from losing and you can even open your binder and slam some cards on the board, not even the HJ can DQ you now.

  17. #57
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    The ability to pay any color for a mana cost has never really needed to be called what it actually is - generic - as opposed to colorless. It would have been much more accurate to say that Wrath of God has a "Two white, two generic" cost requirement, but anecdotally -- I never hear people say this. When people just talk about a card, they usually say a thing like, "Wrath of God costs two white and two colorless".

    We're steeped in the nomenclature so we don't really think about it but really -- colorless mana has always been represented differently than all the colors of mana. It's the only mana symbol that has an independent variable.

    Consider Dark Ritual vs. Thran Dynamo. Ritual says "Add to your mana pool" while Dynamo says "Add to your mana pool". Looking at most cards which add multiple mana to your pool at once, the real goofball here is Dynamo - because remember, this isn't talking about what a card costs to play, this is talking about actually adding some kind of mana to your pool. Every other mana color in the game, even when its a stupidly high number of mana, has to add a symbol for each mana it's adding - Geosurge has on it. That's seven Rs, in case it isn't immediately obvious.

    Now maybe a perfect world solution would be to encase the whole problem in a new verbiage like "Add seven R to your mana pool" but really, the number of cards that add static, high numbers of not-easily-counted-on-first-glance mana to your pool is fairly limited. EDIT: Also that still makes colorless mana stupid because it is still either out-of-line with the rest of mana by keeping its independent variable, or it looks like "Add seven 1 to your mana pool" which sounds like fucking Terryology.

    So ultimately, maybe it is simpler to let a generic cost be expressed in a single icon with a number, and to let an actual unit of mana be held to the "1 symbol per unit" thing. In which case, <> is as good a way as any to express that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  18. #58

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    I just thought I would point out that Bismuth is a primary ingredient in pepto bismol and other gastro intestinal medicines, perhaps a hint that the set will be shi-, sick. I sure hope <> isn't just some shallow, one off ability like deserts and camels.

  19. #59

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    The ability to pay any color for a mana cost has never really needed to be called what it actually is - generic - as opposed to colorless. It would have been much more accurate to say that Wrath of God has a "Two white, two generic" cost requirement, but anecdotally -- I never hear people say this. When people just talk about a card, they usually say a thing like, "Wrath of God costs two white and two colorless".

    We're steeped in the nomenclature so we don't really think about it but really -- colorless mana has always been represented differently than all the colors of mana. It's the only mana symbol that has an independent variable.

    Consider Dark Ritual vs. Thran Dynamo. Ritual says "Add to your mana pool" while Dynamo says "Add to your mana pool". Looking at most cards which add multiple mana to your pool at once, the real goofball here is Dynamo - because remember, this isn't talking about what a card costs to play, this is talking about actually adding some kind of mana to your pool. Every other mana color in the game, even when its a stupidly high number of mana, has to add a symbol for each mana it's adding - Geosurge has on it. That's seven Rs, in case it isn't immediately obvious.

    Now maybe a perfect world solution would be to encase the whole problem in a new verbiage like "Add seven R to your mana pool" but really, the number of cards that add static, high numbers of not-easily-counted-on-first-glance mana to your pool is fairly limited. EDIT: Also that still makes colorless mana stupid because it is still either out-of-line with the rest of mana by keeping its independent variable, or it looks like "Add seven 1 to your mana pool" which sounds like fucking Terryology.

    So ultimately, maybe it is simpler to let a generic cost be expressed in a single icon with a number, and to let an actual unit of mana be held to the "1 symbol per unit" thing. In which case, <> is as good a way as any to express that.

    You win the thread!

  20. #60
    Sushi or Meat and Eggs
    Cire's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Posts

    2,252

    Re: [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post

    That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana.
    That's the worry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Edit: I mean the land could literately be tapping to make colorless instead of generic mana . . . but . . . why?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)