[OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

[apple713]

Zendikar manlands are even worse in terms of value. They see...I guess slightly more play? The UG one is stone unplayable in Standard and the WB one is okay, so I guess Standard demand will prop them up for a while.

My guess? Players are going to really, really want Wastes. These are raw EDH fodder. EDH players will eat these up because chances are, if you're building a colorless deck, you're going to want 20+ of these, and they take up common slots in a small set. If you draft a lot, pick Wastes early and often and hold onto them because I think they'll be unique to this set with a remote possibility of future reprinting in the right block.

Its a basic land type... There will probably be tons. I doubt they would restict the print run on something like this. Consider snow covered lands.

[jrsthethird]

by a dumbest of rules changes, Why would you change thousands of cards retroactively

Because it needed to happen sooner or later. Doesn't actually change anything; we still know what Ancient Tomb does.


when you can simply define <> on the casting cost of the new cards like specifically colorless

Too confusing for new players:

"My spell costs :1:<>, my Reliquary Tower taps for :1:. Where do I get the <> from?"
"You can use the tower for <>. The :1: in the cost is any mana. The <> means colorless, which is what Tower makes."
"So why doesn't the Tower say <>?"
"We're too lazy to change some old cards."


(theres gonna be only few anyway)?

Pure speculation.


invention of some bureaucratic rulez nazi (I don't even know if my proposed change confronts the rules, but it's 100% human-understandable unlike (5) = <><><><><>)

Last time I checked, Soulbright Flamekin still makes :r::r::r::r::r::r::r::r:, which is totally understandable. I don't see your point.

[Cire]

As we discussed this is the best possible outcome for D mana. . . the only thing we can complain about is how ridiculous it is that they implemented this in the second block of a set, especially when the first block had so many D producing lands and token.

Anyway I look forward to playing DRUG Prison and BUD ComBRO. :tongue:

[Ace/Homebrew]

If you draft a lot, pick Wastes early and often and hold onto them because I think they'll be unique to this set with a remote possibility of future reprinting in the right block.
I agree that hoarding Wastes from Oath is a good strategy from a value perspective. But I disagree that they will be unique to this set. Wizards purposefully chose a generic name so it could be printed in any and all sets/products where a colorless basic makes sense. The reason Wastes from this set will hold value is because they are full-art. I believe THAT aspect of the card will be unique to the Zendikar blocks. In a year or two full-art foil Wastes will go for the same price as full-art foil lands from the original ZEN block.

[Sloshthedark]

Because it needed to happen sooner or later. Doesn't actually change anything; we still know what Ancient Tomb does.



Too confusing for new players:

"My spell costs :1:<>, my Reliquary Tower taps for :1:. Where do I get the <> from?"
"You can use the tower for <>. The :1: in the cost is any mana. The <> means colorless, which is what Tower makes."
"So why doesn't the Tower say <>?"
"We're too lazy to change some old cards."

Pure speculation.


it changes a lot visually, AGAIN, am I the only one who would prefer to have compact visual style?

No way, it's super easy, it's the same like asking what's X? today, <> = 1 has to be colorless... that's all, it's like phyrexian mana, isn't much of a complication, it's like adding another keyword mechanic which will be soon forgoten, having 2 symbols for the same in the most "entry" level - draft, standard, whatever is the definition of confusing

where do you get it? - from colorless land, tap to add number instead of pictures... since 199x

number of card released doesn't change anything, it's compatible throught the game like the split or phyrexian mana cost expands the posibilities, <> restricts them

it's odd to have a disagreement here =)

[Lemnear]

i'm with you Martin. WotC is going to change thousands of colorless mana-producing cards from :1: into <>, just to make a point about a dozen of cards having <> in the cost rather than printing a rulestext on the card that a certain amount of mana has to be payed with explicitely colorless mana rather than generic

Edit: Not that anyone minds, but the idea to differ between generic and colorless after 20 years just for a suspecible dozen of cards in this set is ridiculous

[Cire]

i'm with you Martin. WotC is going to change thousands of colorless mana-producing cards from :1: into <>, just to make a point about a dozen of cards having <> in the cost rather than printing a rulestext on the card that a certain amount of mana has to be payed with explicitely colorless mana rather than generic

It would be nice if wizard will continually use D mana in the future, and D is not contained to this one block.

My worry is that D is thematically tied to Eldrazi, so we will only get D when Eldrazi are around. Hopefully, though they reflavor D for each set.

So if dominaria, D will appear as a desert. In new phrexia, D appears as a compleation lab? In Ravnica D appears as trash heap. In Theros D appears as. . . a desert again. . . etc. . and so on.

[GundamGuy]

i'm with you Martin. WotC is going to change thousands of colorless mana-producing cards from :1: into <>, just to make a point about a dozen of cards having <> in the cost rather than printing a rulestext on the card that a certain amount of mana has to be payed with explicitely colorless mana rather than generic

Edit: Not that anyone minds, but the idea to differ between generic and colorless after 20 years just for a suspecible dozen of cards in this set is ridiculous

I'm in this camp as well.

I also don't buy the "Too Confusing for new Players argument." New players managed to understand the differnce between colorless mana and generic mana just fine till now.

If we are going to assume that new players don't understand the rules and would wonder what produces D mana, why not assume they will now be confused about what lands tap for generic mana? Since that is a mana symbol that doesn't appear on any lands now... (not that it worked that way anyway... but we are assuming they don't undersand the rules right?)

Bravo to wizards for introducing cards that you must use colorless mana to cast... the rest though is Wizards "solving" problems that didn't need to be solved.

[TsumiBand]

by a dumbest of rules changes, Why would you change thousands of cards retroactively when you can simply define <> on the casting cost of the new cards like specifically colorless (theres gonna be only few anyway)? invention of some bureaucratic rulez nazi (I don't even know if my proposed change confronts the rules, but it's 100% human-understandable unlike (5) = <><><><><>)

IKR, every time I read Seething Song I just add a random amount of :r: to my mana pool because I can't be bothered to count all those non-Blue mana symbols.

There is literally nothing bad about this change, especially if you "lived through" the Grand Creature Type Update. I mean I miss Lords and Ships too; the RealFeel is -emo, but I still get out of bed in the morning.

The only reason to fuss is that you've grown accustomed to a certain convention -- that's understandable, but really just don't make this a bigger deal than it actually is. It actually makes a bunch of older cards a little more interesting and if we see more D cards in the future could actually lead to some of the older lands getting a second look. More playable cards = more good, I thought that's why people liked Eternal formats, right?

[Richard Cheese]

Its a basic land type... There will probably be tons. I doubt they would restict the print run on something like this. Consider snow covered lands.

They'll probably also show up in fat packs, precons, event decks, etc., and be shipped to stores in bulk for use in drafts/sealed.

[GundamGuy]

They'll probably also show up in fat packs, precons, event decks, etc., and be shipped to stores in bulk for use in drafts/sealed.

Maybe, the C instead of L next the number has some people thinking it'll be a Basic but not a "Free to use as many as you want" basic...

[Dice_Box]

Then why make it Basic. That's a silly idea.

[phonics]

Then why make it Basic. That's a silly idea.

The whole idea is pretty silly tbh, errata-ing ~20 years of vernacular to accommodate a handful of cards, while getting rid of one of the main things that makes colorless unique (lack of color mana constraints). Considering the recent history of mechanics, it will probably just end up being another throwaway mechanic again.

[Ace/Homebrew]

It will probably just end up being another throwaway mechanic again.
I could see them using it again in Battle For Mirrodin, when Emrakul invades and the Phyrexians have to rally together to save their plane from the... evil invaders? :eyebrow:
Can't you picture cards that cost Phyrexian Diamond mana? (<P> can be paid with either <> or 2 life.) :rolleyes:

[Cire]

I could see them using it again in Battle For Mirrodin, when Emrakul invades and the Phyrexians have to rally together to save their plane from the... evil invaders? :eyebrow:
Can't you picture cards that cost Phyrexian Diamond mana? (<P> can be paid with either <> or 2 life.) :rolleyes:

I definitely see 2/D in the future. . . . pay in 2 generic or D.

[Ace/Homebrew]

I definitely see 2/D in the future. . . . pay in 2 generic or D.
That would be after the Phyrexians defeat Emrakul, but not before they absorb the scions into their collective.
At that point they will attempt to take over Lorwyn/Shadowmoor and we'll see the (2/<P>) hybrid mana symbols. (You may pay :2:, <>, or 2 life)

[Cire]

That would be after the Phyrexians defeat Emrakul, but not before they absorb the scions into their collective.
At that point they will attempt to take over Lorwyn/Shadowmoor and we'll see the (2/<P>) hybrid mana symbols. (You may pay :2:, <>, or 2 life)

I thought, the next steps would be that we learn that marit lage is actually another ancient eldrazi and they introduce D/S mana (you may pay D or Snow).

(aside - honestly at this point the only gripe people have is that the aesthetic change is silly, unless they keep introducing D cards every set; which I hope they do. There is a lot of design space with D.)

[Dice_Box]

I seem to have more faith in this than most. (Something I think just won me money.) I feel like this is the start of real possibility, the chance to open up an unexplored avenue of the game. If this is a single block mechanic I will be very surprised because this is so easy to make work.

Wizards wanted to add a new colour (Purple) that sat between Blue and Black. It failed in testing due to lacking it's own colour identity. Colourless though is a pre-existing deal though, with its own nuances, it's own limits and it's own strengths. Once we leave Devoid behind of course. In that we gain the "Sixth" colour for real. An easy slot into the game, an easily backwards compatible deal that will not even be as problematic as giving Metalworker a Class you have to look up when you are dropping a Cavern.

This is intuitive, it is interesting, it opens up new space and I love the idea. I love that as a Shops player you can make something I can't cast turn one off a Lotus but make it cheap anyway. I like as a Lands player you can make a Land that's Colourless that I might have to rebuild around to use. I like that as a Jund player you can make cards that I can want but can't use because my deck is too greedy already, but yet have them be open to EVERYONE else to use against me. I live this.

Wizards has my full support in this, in its implementation, it's effect on old cards (Which is much better than Purple would have ever been) and it's possibilities. Because this is so simple, so easy to understand and yet offers so much space to build in it excits me. Errata 20 years of cards? Well this seems like the least offencive way you could do something like this and it makes exactly zero effect on the cards in question. Workshops, Tomb, City and Mystic Gate all still work the same way they did yesterday. All this does is give more options for tomorrow.

One last thing. Now Bloodmoon can turn off colourless Lands for real. That could be fun.

[TsumiBand]

I could see them using it again in Battle For Mirrodin, when Emrakul invades and the Phyrexians have to rally together to save their plane from the... evil invaders? :eyebrow:
Can't you picture cards that cost Phyrexian Diamond mana? (<P> can be paid with either <> or 2 life.) :rolleyes:

Not that I'm a storyline geek but wouldn't that mean the Phyrexians corrupt the Eldrazi? That would essentially be the "sudo rm -rf" of the Multiverse and probably the whole game. Like the only reason to ever do this or tell this story would be because someone officially decides the game is no longer A Thing.

The mere fact that a reprint is in this set which carries the new symbol should be a flag that this isn't going away. This is on a separate tier from, like, "Snow mana", because Snow didn't actually show up outside of Ice Age (who cares about the one card from Time Spiral Block). It's similar only in that it does a good job of identifying costs that can be paid -- if a thing costs 1S, the 'S' is essentially "generic mana, as long as it came from a snow permanent". Meanwhile, colorless mana has always been a part of the game but there's never been a good way to identify it as a cost. You couldn't really say "this Myr Enforcer costs 7 colorless" and be totally right in saying it. Now they could print some terribad DDDDDDD-costed Myr Enforcer and you'd have to scrounge up 7 colorless mana to cast it. Quite opposite to this, I suppose they could dip into an Un-set and cost a spell at WUBRGDS, but hopefully that spell will be the most glorious thing to ever happen to the game.

[iamajellydonut]

(unless they keep introducing D cards every set;)

(which they won't)

[Richard Cheese]

Step 1: Make artifacts cost colored mana and have a color
Step 2: Creatures and artifacts can be enchantments now!
Step 2: Make spells that require colored mana colorless, but not artifacts
Step 3: Make spells that specifically require colorless mana, but that aren't artifacts and can presumably have a color?
Step 4: Remove artifacts from the game entirely
Step 5: ??????
Step 666: Hail Satan!

[GundamGuy]

Then why make it Basic. That's a silly idea.

Well I'm on the record as thinking this whole thing is a silly idea...

But to address your question... I don't think it's "basic" in the traditional sense.

It doesn't work with the rules that currently exist that allow basic lands without rules text to produce mana since it has no subtype. I'm pretty sure we are going to see a (minor) change in the definition and rules that apply to basic lands.

I imagine they decided it should be basic because of stuff like Path to Exile (maybe a reprint...) and cards that find Basic Land Cards.

Maybe they decided L's were dumb and have decided to make all Basic lands have C instead, but it seems more likely that Waste is taking a common spot not the Land spot in a pack.

[Cire]

(which they won't)

A man can dream! :cry:

[GundamGuy]

It's similar only in that it does a good job of identifying costs that can be paid -- if a thing costs 1S, the 'S' is essentially "generic mana, as long as it came from a snow permanent". Meanwhile, colorless mana has always been a part of the game but there's never been a good way to identify it as a cost. You couldn't really say "this Myr Enforcer costs 7 colorless" and be totally right in saying it. Now they could print some terribad DDDDDDD-costed Myr Enforcer and you'd have to scrounge up 7 colorless mana to cast it. Quite opposite to this, I suppose they could dip into an Un-set and cost a spell at WUBRGDS, but hopefully that spell will be the most glorious thing to ever happen to the game.

That's becasue colorless mana has never been a cost restriction before. I think everyone is on board with the idea of introducing a new cost restriction where you have to pay D and not just generic mana.

Bravo to Wizards for introducing a mechanic that might allow them to print powerful artifacts again.

On the other hand, the whole going back and changing mana production symbols (To solve a problem that isn't actually a problem) is what people find silly.

This will be even sillier if this isn't actually evergreen.

[rufus]

...

This will be even sillier if this isn't actually evergreen.

Yeah. I like the D mana costs as an idea, but I don't want to see Eldrazi in every set going forward.

[ReAnimator]

Yeah. I like the D

Nothing personal rufus, but this thread is rife with quote mining opportunity!

[Darkenslight]

i'm with you Martin. WotC is going to change thousands of colorless mana-producing cards from :1: into <>, just to make a point about a dozen of cards having <> in the cost rather than printing a rulestext on the card that a certain amount of mana has to be payed with explicitely colorless mana rather than generic

Edit: Not that anyone minds, but the idea to differ between generic and colorless after 20 years just for a suspecible dozen of cards in this set is ridiculous

See, here's the thing: it's obvious that colorless mana producers produce colorless mana. What this change is doing is essentially codifying that.

Would it have been better to see in BfZ? Of course. But because of the change pretty late in the day (from a set-design perspective) to two sets, the design team for OGW had to condense two sets into one, meaning that the proposed new large set after OGW had to be mashed in, which is where the Wastes/explicit colorless comes from.

IT also Legendary Artifact and Legendary Colorless creatures to have basic lands, which reduces those decks' major weakness of total-nonbasic manabases. IT makes sense from that perspective, but the timing could most deifnitely have been better.

[jrsthethird]

i'm with you Martin. WotC is going to change thousands of colorless mana-producing cards from :1: into <>, just to make a point about a dozen of cards having <> in the cost rather than printing a rulestext on the card that a certain amount of mana has to be payed with explicitely colorless mana rather than generic

Edit: Not that anyone minds, but the idea to differ between generic and colorless after 20 years just for a suspecible dozen of cards in this set is ridiculous

This is honestly such a huge change to the base of the game (requiring a slight rewrite of the Basic Land rules), that it would be completely fucking stupid of them to throw it away with a single set. It's possible there's a thematic reason they went with it in the second set. It's probable that their grand idea got shook up by the two block paradigm and this is what we have now.

We do need to consider Limited environments too, and introducing a new Basic land and mana symbol (with cards to take advantage of them) might not have fit in BFZ. Completely possible it was to be explored in the second AND third sets, and with one of them cut, here we are. Why introduce the symbol when you can't fully show it off?

Would you rather them just change it in BFZ without really using it? That seems even more arbitrary.


They'll probably also show up in fat packs, precons, event decks, etc., and be shipped to stores in bulk for use in drafts/sealed.

Doubt it; it's common. It makes draft much more interesting that way.

[Lemnear]

See, here's the thing: it's obvious that colorless mana producers produce colorless mana. What this change is doing is essentially codifying that.

Would it have been better to see in BfZ? Of course. But because of the change pretty late in the day (from a set-design perspective) to two sets, the design team for OGW had to condense two sets into one, meaning that the proposed new large set after OGW had to be mashed in, which is where the Wastes/explicit colorless comes from.

IT also Legendary Artifact and Legendary Colorless creatures to have basic lands, which reduces those decks' major weakness of total-nonbasic manabases. IT makes sense from that perspective, but the timing could most deifnitely have been better.

It kinda depends if you let the "oh, we had to turn three planned expansions into two instead, so pardon us for fucking this up and still buy it, m'kay?!" count, which I do not.

Pardon ME, but if WotCs design/development team can't manage to make a TWO EXPANSION BLOCK work in terms of mechanics, they should all be fired immediately. Making a buzz about generic/colorless in the second expansion after not giving a fuck in the first an let the Eldrazi drines make :1: instead is such a huge design fail, that I'm baffled no one at Hasbro has reached for the ripcord


Step 1: Make artifacts cost colored mana and have a color
Step 2: Creatures and artifacts can be enchantments now!
Step 2: Make spells that require colored mana colorless, but not artifacts
Step 3: Make spells that specifically require colorless mana, but that aren't artifacts and can presumably have a color?
Step 4: Remove enchantments from the game entirely
Step 5: ??????
Step 666: Hail Satan!

Slight fix, dear Richard. The moment WotC came up with colored Artifacts, they have given up searching for distinctive mechanical difference between enchantments and artifacts which could be really easy, if they would even care.

Colorless Artifacts: Activation costs to do anything
Colored Enchantments: (continious,) triggered effects (each upkeep, evertime you do [...], etc.)

[jrsthethird]

It kinda depends if you let the "oh, we had to turn three planned expansions into two instead, so pardon us for fucking this up and still buy it, m'kay?!" count, which I do not.

Pardon ME, but if WotCs design/development team can't manage to make a TWO EXPANSION BLOCK work in terms of mechanics, they should all be fired immediately. Making a buzz about generic/colorless in the second expansion after not giving a fuck in the first an let the Eldrazi drines make :1: instead is such a huge design fail, that I'm baffled no one at Hasbro has reached for the ripcord

Their design schedule is so ingrained in how far ahead they work on each set and each block that this change abruptly altered the design/development process. Imagine being on the set design team for OGW or (BFZ 3rd set) and finding out that one of those sets was cut and two full sets needed to become one. Good luck bro.

Also, it's completely possible that BFZ was handed off and in final stages of development when they cut down to two sets, so whatever grand rollout they had in mind for later in the block could no longer be feasibly added to BFZ anyway. Also, story-wise it makes sense to hold off the Eldrazi corruption of the landscape until later on.


Slight fix, dear Richard. The moment WotC came up with colored Artifacts, they have given up searching for distinctive mechanical difference between enchantments and artifacts which could be really easy, if they would even care.

Colorless Artifacts: Activation costs to do anything
Colored Enchantments: (continious,) triggered effects (each upkeep, evertime you do [...], etc.)

There are 107 colored artifacts in the history of Magic. Colored artifacts only showed up en masse in one block: Shards of Alara. There are only a few other sets where they've made a splash:

Future Sight (Sarcomite Myr) - goofy one-off future-shift
Shadowmoor (Reaper King) - Artifact Creature lord, only colored because of the hybrid mana
New Phyrexia - Only cards that have been corrupted with Phyrexian mana
Theros - Legendary Enchantment Artifact cycle
Supplementary sets - Shardless Agent, Baleful Strix, and Etherium-Horn Sorcerer, all of which are thematically tied to Alara

So they have created a distinct flavor difference between colored and colorless artifacts, but I guess that isn't enough for you, because apparently only mechanics matter. I mean, they're really just enchantments with Kicker :0: - If you paid the kicker cost (you did), this card dies to Shatter.

[Cire]

I'll be curious to see what the "color identity" of colorless cards will be, as opposed to generic artifacts. Can't just stick to eldrazi themes like exile, as that would make exile less special and if they are making this evergreen, they can't just continue to only thematically tie it to eldrazi corruption.

[Lemnear]

Their design schedule is so ingrained in how far ahead they work on each set and each block that this change abruptly altered the design/development process. Imagine being on the set design team for OGW or (BFZ 3rd set) and finding out that one of those sets was cut and two full sets needed to become one. Good luck bro.

Also, it's completely possible that BFZ was handed off and in final stages of development when they cut down to two sets, so whatever grand rollout they had in mind for later in the block could no longer be feasibly added to BFZ anyway. Also, story-wise it makes sense to hold off the Eldrazi corruption of the landscape until later on.

Which would raise the question why they don't work block by block but expansion for expansion without anyone having a clear plan of how the block should look like in the end. A block should share the fundamental idea/design. Its like having different designers building different parts of your living room furniture ... its a predictable mess


There are 107 colored artifacts in the history of Magic. Colored artifacts only showed up en masse in one block: Shards of Alara. There are only a few other sets where they've made a splash:

Future Sight (Sarcomite Myr) - goofy one-off future-shift
Shadowmoor (Reaper King) - Artifact Creature lord, only colored because of the hybrid mana
New Phyrexia - Only cards that have been corrupted with Phyrexian mana
Theros - Legendary Enchantment Artifact cycle
Supplementary sets - Shardless Agent, Baleful Strix, and Etherium-Horn Sorcerer, all of which are thematically tied to Alara

So they have created a distinct flavor difference between colored and colorless artifacts, but I guess that isn't enough for you, because apparently only mechanics matter. I mean, they're really just enchantments with Kicker :0: - If you paid the kicker cost (you did), this card dies to Shatter.

Did the enchantment-artifact-creature stuff in theros made any sense for you? Did it actually matter, if they were mere creature or artifacts compared to that type-mix? Had the fact that these cards had the enchantment type written on it ANY influence to their playability or block interactions? Does anybody care if Shardless Agent is an Artifact creature or not aside some Vorthos who jerks to the fact that its tied to a certain plane in terms of flavor?

[H]

Does anybody care if Shardless Agent is an Artifact creature or not aside some Vorthos who jerks to the fact that its tied to a certain plane in terms of flavor?

Actually Shardless being an Artifact is pretty significant, vis-à-vis Ethersworn Canonist and growing Tarmogoyf, for example.

From a flavor perspective, well, I don't know or care about the flavor perspective to tell you anything.

[rufus]

...
Did the enchantment-artifact-creature stuff in theros made any sense for you? Did it actually matter, if they were mere creature or artifacts compared to that type-mix? Had the fact that these cards had the enchantment type written on it ANY influence to their playability or block interactions? Does anybody care if Shardless Agent is an Artifact creature or not aside some Vorthos who jerks to the fact that its tied to a certain plane in terms of flavor?

The type definitely matters mechanically speaking - constellation decks were a factor in standard constructed, and Dromoka's Command was premier removal in the format. There are some strong 'enchantment matters' cards in legacy like the enchantress variants and such. That said, the theros enchantment creatures generally don't fit the power or mana requirements for legacy.

[GundamGuy]

See, here's the thing: it's obvious that colorless mana producers produce colorless mana. What this change is doing is essentially codifying that.



I agree Wizard's is solving a problem that didn't need solved...

[TsumiBand]

Most of what it does isn't even "fixing a problem" it's just adding a new way to cost things without having stupid "Pay at least :2: of this card's spell with colorless mana" because honestly that's terrible. It's stupid, literally stupid, to put card-defining text outside of the place it actually belongs.

Remember when Legendary cards were just "Creature - Legend" and it said "{Card} counts as a {creature type}"? That was stupid. Yes it's readable, no one's saying it's not -- but it's clearly not best practice, and it's clear because we have the card type area for defining card types, and so all they had to do was go back and realize that the game is actually literally better when all the relevant creature type information was in one place.

In fact that part of the card has endured more intentional functional changes than most of the rest of the card, I think? Even considering Legend types; it went from "Summon Legend" to "Creature - Legend" to "Creature - Warrior Legend" to "Legendary Creature - Human Warrior". Are these objectively bad changes? I expect most people would not feel that this part of the card has done anything but improve from where it started. If Magic cards were akin to a schema in a database, putting information about casting_cost in card_text_area would make people lose their fucking shit. In fact, it'd be really interesting to see how modern MTGO handles junk like additional costs and timing restrictions as card text or ability text instead of in a more "usual" place. If there's a resource on that I'd love to read it.

Like, I know there's 20+ years of convention here but it's not even addressing the thing you guys think it's addressing. I don't understand why all the focus is on old cards that need errata when most of what this changes is new cards and the ways in which they can ask for mana. There's exactly one change, and that's "things can cost colorless mana now".

[rufus]

Changing topics a little, Mirrorpool seems like it's strong in Amulet Bloom since you can fetch it with Primeval Titana and then use it to copy titan. Are there any Legacy decks that will pay (effectively) 6 mana to copy a creature, or (effectively) 4 mana to copy a spell?

[jrsthethird]

^^^ 12-post? Card seems more vintage-playable for Shops.

The Enchantment Creatures were made specifically to resemble enchantment effects on creatures. Everyone agrees Lucent Liminid (sp?) is a terrible design for being arbitrary, but the idea was that they don't get the enchantment type unless they have an enchantment-like effect. The assignment of artifact to random creatures actually feels like a more arbitrary assignment then enchantments.

Similarly the Legendary Enchantment Artifact cycle all had elements of both types. A continuous enchantment-like effect and a tap artifact-like effect.

[swoop]

Am I the only one that reads <> mana, or D, as "D ick" mana? (Dunno if theres auto filter so here ya go)

"Okay I'm tapping wastes for D(ick)"

sounds legit

[Stinky-Dinkins]

A source at WotC already said that's exactly what it stands for, you tap for Dick. Having more than one in your mana pool at once is highly suspect.

[warfordium]

Am I the only one that reads <> mana, or D, as "D ick" mana? (Dunno if theres auto filter so here ya go)

"Okay I'm tapping wastes for D(ick)"

sounds legit

yep, you're the only one.

[GundamGuy]

Most of what it does isn't even "fixing a problem" it's just adding a new way to cost things without having stupid "Pay at least :2: of this card's spell with colorless mana" because honestly that's terrible. It's stupid, literally stupid, to put card-defining text outside of the place it actually belongs.

Remember when Legendary cards were just "Creature - Legend" and it said "{Card} counts as a {creature type}"? That was stupid. Yes it's readable, no one's saying it's not -- but it's clearly not best practice, and it's clear because we have the card type area for defining card types, and so all they had to do was go back and realize that the game is actually literally better when all the relevant creature type information was in one place.

In fact that part of the card has endured more intentional functional changes than most of the rest of the card, I think? Even considering Legend types; it went from "Summon Legend" to "Creature - Legend" to "Creature - Warrior Legend" to "Legendary Creature - Human Warrior". Are these objectively bad changes? I expect most people would not feel that this part of the card has done anything but improve from where it started. If Magic cards were akin to a schema in a database, putting information about casting_cost in card_text_area would make people lose their fucking shit. In fact, it'd be really interesting to see how modern MTGO handles junk like additional costs and timing restrictions as card text or ability text instead of in a more "usual" place. If there's a resource on that I'd love to read it.

Like, I know there's 20+ years of convention here but it's not even addressing the thing you guys think it's addressing. I don't understand why all the focus is on old cards that need errata when most of what this changes is new cards and the ways in which they can ask for mana. There's exactly one change, and that's "things can cost colorless mana now".

I agree with you that putting "You must spend 2 colorless mana" on this spell is awful and not a real alternative. But when I say that Wizards is fixing a problem that doesn't need fixing I'm not talking about adding a symbol that adds a new cost restriction to the Mana Cost of cards. That's actually really cool, and I'm hopeful it's evergreen because it opens up some new things we've not seen before.

What I have a problem with is the idea that because the symbol exists in the Mana Cost of Cards we've got to show colorless mana production with that same symbol.

There is still Zero reason in my mind to change how the production of colorless mana was represented on cards.

You can totally have D in the mana cost of cards without changing how we represent the production of colorless mana on lands.

Also this sort of ham fisted, Noobs won't understand it unless they see there lands can produce D is actually more confusing since in the same block there are lands with :1: on it that can be used to pay for the D cost... it's going to be really awesome when we are drafting BFZ and OGW together and noobs are confused thinkin they can't cast there Eldrazi since there is only like 2 D producing cards that they saw the entire draft...

Edit: To finish the thought... "Think of the Noobs!" isn't a really good argument IMO, becasue this change is more confusing then if they only made it a symbol that impacted mana costs (like hybrid mana, or phyrexian mana) and not touching mana production at all.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Looks like you're going to have to get over it! :tongue:

[jrsthethird]

Also this sort of ham fisted, Noobs won't understand it unless they see there lands can produce D is actually more confusing since in the same block there are lands with :1: on it that can be used to pay for the D cost... it's going to be really awesome when we are drafting BFZ and OGW together and noobs are confused thinkin they can't cast there Eldrazi since there is only like 2 D producing cards that they saw the entire draft...

This is a good point, but all things considered it's something that Wizards has to suck up and deal with. Honestly this block has been an utter shitshow so far that I'm not surprised that this rollout is so clunky. I think it's ultimately for the betterment of the game, so it's worth the awkwardness that will happen for these 3 months before Shadows hopefully shows what a new block should look like.

Also they draft 2x OGW first, so if they crack a Kozilek or Mirrorpool they can aim for D lands without expecting to hit something in BFZ. There really aren't a lot of D producing cards in BFZ (other than Eldrazi Spawn), but those are good enough (and intuitive enough) that using them to cast Eldrazi would make sense. It's cards like Kozilek's Channeler that will mostly be looked over by the noob argument.

I hope Wizards releases new Eldrazi Spawn tokens with D in this set. If they don't, that would be very disappointing indeed.

[QBChaz]

Does cost reduction work? Say I want to cast an artifact which costs D and I have Herald of Kozilek out, can I cast it for free? If so, when I have an artifact which costs 1D can I reduce the D part of the mana cost and pay the 1 with coloured mana?

[rufus]

Does cost reduction work? Say I want to cast an artifact which costs D and I have Herald of Kozilek out, can I cast it for free? If so, when I have an artifact which costs 1D can I reduce the D part of the mana cost and pay the 1 with coloured mana?

It's not clear at this point, but I don't think that, say, Animar, Soul of Elements will be able to reduce away the DD cost on Kozilek the Great Distortion.

With cards that have "spend only D on X" templating like Drain Life cost reducers would certainly apply. Edgwalker style D cost reducers would obviously also work.

[GundamGuy]

Does cost reduction work? Say I want to cast an artifact which costs D and I have Herald of Kozilek out, can I cast it for free? If so, when I have an artifact which costs 1D can I reduce the D part of the mana cost and pay the 1 with coloured mana?

If it cost only D, then it won't impact it. If it cost 1D then it would just cost D.

Is how I assume it'll work....

[square_two]

Is the consensus of assumed rules changes pretty much summed like this?

Mana costs can either be colored (WUGRB), colorless (D), or any (number). Mana producers either produce colored mana (Dark Ritual - BBB) or colorless mana (Mystic Gate - D). Colorless mana producing effects will be errata'd from say, Sol Ring producing 2 to Sol Ring producing DD.

That's my bet at least. I'm used to saying that a 4R spell costs "4 colorless and a red" but will have to get used to saying it costs "4 of any and a red".

[jrsthethird]

That's my bet at least. I'm used to saying that a 4R spell costs "4 colorless and a red" but will have to get used to saying it costs "4 of any and a red".

You were never correct to begin with. It should always have been "4 generic and a red".

This is why this is such a key change.

[rufus]

...

Mana costs can either be colored (WUGRB), colorless (D), or any (number). Mana producers either produce colored mana (Dark Ritual - BBB) or colorless mana (Mystic Gate - D). Colorless mana producing effects will be errata'd from say, Sol Ring producing 2 to Sol Ring producing DD.

That's my bet at least. I'm used to saying that a 4R spell costs "4 colorless and a red" but will have to get used to saying it costs "4 of any and a red".

That's certainly what I expect. We'll probably end up using "devoid" or something similar for D mana and "generic" for what we previously called colorless in costs to avoid ambiguity.

Cards that change mana costs (like Trinisphere) will also distinguish between generic and devoid mana. There are a lot of minutia. Colorless creatures can probably be tapped to pay D costs on cards with convoke, delve won't pay for D costs, affinity won't reduce D costs away and so on.

[TsumiBand]

You were never correct to begin with. It should always have been "4 generic and a red".

This is why this is such a key change.

Indeed. This change doesn't just affect new players; there's already a misuse of nomenclature when it comes to casting costs. There is a significant functional difference between the terms "colorless" and "generic" and even older players are so accustomed to interchanging the terms without realizing it.

Given the precedence established by hybrid mana symbols and Phyrexian mana symbols, I really don't find any compelling reason to have not done this in precisely this way.

[rufus]

You were never correct to begin with. It should always have been "4 generic and a red".

IMO it's correct - but ambiguous - to call it a colorless cost.

[TsumiBand]

IMO it's correct - but ambiguous - to call it a colorless cost.

Unfortunately you can't have opinions about facts. :) The Comp rules have long since called the :X: in a casting cost the "generic mana cost" of a spell or ability; calling it colorless is.... strictly inaccurate, especially now.


202. Mana Cost and Color

202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card. (See rule 107.4.) On most cards, these symbols are printed in the upper right corner. Some cards from the Future Sight set have alternate frames in which the mana symbols appear to the left of the illustration.
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Unless an object’s mana cost includes Phyrexian mana symbols (see rule 107.4f), paying that mana cost requires matching the color of any colored mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
202.1b Some objects have no mana cost. This normally includes all land cards, any other cards that have no mana symbols where their mana cost would appear, tokens (unless the effect that creates them specifies otherwise), and nontraditional Magic cards. Having no mana cost represents an unpayable cost (see rule 117.6). Note that lands are played without paying any costs (see rule 305, “Lands”).

Underline mine. It never comes up, but Magic has always required a fine understanding of the explicitivity of its rules and corner cases - now, this is no longer a corner case, but a need-to-know fact about the game - 1 can be paid with D, but 1 != D.

[GundamGuy]

Given the precedence established by hybrid mana symbols and Phyrexian mana symbols, I really don't find any compelling reason to have not done this in precisely this way.

The precedence established by hybrid mana and phyrexian mana is that symbols that impact the casting cost of a card don't have to appear on lands or in mana sources.

I will point out that a noob friend of mine did originally think when Hybrid was introduced that you had to tap a dual land that produced both types of mana to pay the hybrid cost... but figured it out pretty quickly when it was explained to her.



Underline mine. It never comes up, but Magic has always required a fine understanding of the explicitivity of its rules and corner cases - now, this is no longer a corner case, but a need-to-know fact about the game - 1 can be paid with D, but 1 != D.

No, :1: can totally pay for D costs. D isn't a new type of mana right? It's not like you can produce "Generic Mana" still.

Isn't the fact that Mystic Gate saying Tap: Add D mean that :1: and D are actually just the same thing.


The fundimental problem here is is thinking that the symbols in a cards mana cost and the symbols for mana types mean the same thing... when they never really did.

[Cire]

Cards that change mana costs (like Trinisphere) will also distinguish between generic and devoid mana. There are a lot of minutia. Colorless creatures can probably be tapped to pay D costs on cards with convoke, delve won't pay for D costs, affinity won't reduce D costs away and so on.

Oh man. . . how much would this artifact have to cost to be remotely balanced.

?
Artifact
Spells cost D more to cast.

D mana in modern legacy mana bases is actually really hard to come by - wasteland is tricky since even though it provides D, half the time it will be sacrificed . . . .




No, :1: can totally pay for D costs.

As you noted . . . you can't ever produce 1 mana anymore, so this isn't really an issue :tongue:

[rufus]

Unfortunately you can't have opinions about facts. :)
IMO that's just your opinion. :tongue: More specifically, if a generic mana cost is not colorless, then what color does it have?


No, :1: can totally pay for D costs. D isn't a new type of mana right?

AFAIK the spoilers aren't confirmed, so we don't know for sure, but we believe that the mana sources that produce :1: will be retroactively changed to produce D.

[rufus]

Oh man. . . how much would this artifact have to cost to be remotely balanced.

?
Artifact
Spells cost D more to cast.

...


In legacy, on the order of 6 mana. Probably 10+ in limited.

A more sane version would be:

1D
Instant
Counter target colored spell unless its controller pays D

I'll add that to the shitty card creation thread.

[GundamGuy]

IMO that's just your opinion. :tongue: More specifically, if a generic mana cost is not colorless, then what color does it have?



AFAIK the spoilers aren't confirmed, so we don't know for sure, but we believe that the mana sources that produce :1: will be retroactively changed to produce D.

This is my interpertation as well.

So D can pay :1:, but :1: != to D seems off to me. Since :1: is in fact being retroactively changed to be D.

Basically were back were we started, and going foward with this change it should be clear as mud that :1: and D both are and are not the same thing depending on if you are talking Mana Abilities on cards printed before the change, or Mana Costs. (People who play Paper Magic will have to think :1: = D sometimes, and :1: != D othertimes.)

[Cire]

1D
Instant
Counter target colored spell unless its controller pays D

I'll add that to the shitty card creation thread.

This brings me back to my question of: what is D's mechanical identity? So far with Mirrorpool and New Koz, it seems like it's taking away from blue and red (copying and counter). Will D even have a mechanical identity?

For example the card above - why would that be a D spell instead of a UD spell? Is countering part of D now?

This isn't a complaint - but I'm curious to see if there will be a rearrangement of the color pie in the future. For example it would be very interesting ifD is treated as a sixth color and if it would permanently get anything that touches on countering spells, copying or exile (with blue, red/blue and white/black losing their primary status of those effects)

[rufus]

This brings me back to my question of: what is D's mechanical identity? So far with Mirrorpool and New Koz, it seems like it's taking away from blue and red (copying and counter). Will D even have a mechanical identity?


Do artifacts currently have a mechanical identity?

Based on the Eldrazi themes BFZ I'd expect exile, processing, and color/colorless matters stuff to show up in D, but the two spoiled cards don't have any of that. Spoiler Kozilek has menace which is also part red's portfolio, rather than the more colorless super-menace on Pathrazer of Ulamog or Phyrexian Colossus.

[Cire]

Do artifacts currently have a mechanical identity?

No - but if they are going to have D be a new color, and if they want to distinguish D from artifacts they might give it an identity. This is me just brainstorming. For all we know they might never use D again, or they might just treat it as a way to balance artifacts or powerful abilities.

[GundamGuy]

This brings me back to my question of: what is D's mechanical identity?

Tangent, but I wonder if we are less likely to see cards like Ancient ziggurat, or Caverns of Souls now that there is D mana that they can't produce.

In the case of Cavern of Souls it could make any creature that didn't have CMC 0 uncounterable up to now (Unless there is a creature with no creature types I am forgetting about). Because of how generic mana works. However Cavern of Souls would not be able to make a Creature with only D mana in it's cost uncounterable... but it can be tapped for D mana... I know this is a corner case, but if they give us a playable creature that cost D that fits into a deck with Cavern of Souls that's going to be pretty annoying.

[rufus]

Tangent, but I wonder if we are less likely to see cards like Ancient ziggurat, or Caverns of Souls now that there is D mana that they can't produce.
...

The Cavern template actually works just fine for D creatures.

[Cire]

The Cavern template actually works just fine for D creatures.

No it doesn't:

Cavern will read:

Cavern of Souls
Land
As Cavern of Souls enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.
{T}: Add {D} to your mana pool.
{T}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast a creature spell of the chosen type, and that spell can't be countered.

The mana that makes the creature uncounterable only comes from the second ability. The second ability only produces mana of any color. D is colorless mana explicitly and so it will not be included in the "mana of any color." Granted this only means that you can't make a creature with the mana cost composed of only D uncounterable. If its D plus any generic or colored mana you can still make it uncounterable.

Granted. . . . wizards could define "mana of any color" as including "colorless mana" but that would be insanely dumb.

Edit: or Wizards could errata "mana of any color" to "mana of any color or lack thereof" which would also be really really dumb

[rufus]

No it doesn't:
...

Yeah, you don't get the 'uncounterable' on the D creature, but that's a 'soft' drawback which makes things different while still letting play cards. IMO that's a good thing.

[TsumiBand]

No, :1: can totally pay for D costs. D isn't a new type of mana right? It's not like you can produce "Generic Mana" still.

Isn't the fact that Mystic Gate saying Tap: Add D mean that :1: and D are actually just the same thing.

This is incorrect. Moving forward, :1: is only a cost, not mana you can produce, and it's not being changed where it is a cost. D is colorless mana you can produce, and can also be a cost. :1: and D will not the same, at least, not if the pattern of spoilers holds and if D mana actually lives beyond this block.

[GundamGuy]

This is incorrect. Moving forward, :1: is only a cost, not mana you can produce, and it's not being changed where it is a cost. D is colorless mana you can produce, and can also be a cost. :1: and D will not the same, at least, not if the pattern of spoilers holds and if D mana actually lives beyond this block.

I agree, though I want to point out my actual point which you keep missing...

:1: and D are not the same thing expect for when :1: and D are the same thing (on cards printed before to OGW.)

This "Fix" to ensure clarity ony works going foward... or on Magic Online, but adds confusion when you deal with mixed card pools....

This all becomes extremely crazy if Wizards ever decided to print a card that added generic mana to your mana pool. (I don't see this ever happening...)


If its D plus any generic or colored mana you can still make it uncounterable.

I actually thought about this some, and came up with a case (actually multiple cases) where a creature can have both color and D mana symbols and not uncounterable...

Imagine the following Hypotheical Creature Card.

Name: Darmagoyf
Mana Cost: GD (or DG since I have no idea if D is before or after G on the template)
Creature Type: Lhurgoyf

Your opponent taps a Forest and Cavern of Souls (on Lhurgoyf) and then casts Darmagoyf, is it uncounterable?

No, because the Forest can't be used for the D part, Cavern of Souls first ability must have been used.

This would be true with any combitation of color mana costs and D costs where one of the sources of D has to come from Cavern of Souls. So if it was Wastes + Cavern of Souls it would be uncoutnerable, or Wasteland + Cavern of Souls etc.

It gets more likely that the D cost had to be paid with Cavern of Souls colorless ability the more D's the card has.

This is all hypothetical, but kind of intresting and why I don't think we are going to see many mana of any color + restriction (or benifit) type cards.

Also just throwing this out there, but Sundering Titan got a (small) power level boost.

[TsumiBand]

The paper card pool is already a mess though :) functional errata, border changes, art replacement for old game symbols (tapping, mana symbols, color of text, etc), etc etc. This is also nothing new. All a player needs to do is look at an old card with "Summon Wall" or "not playing for ante" or "Waylay" on it to experience the discrepancies. I don't think D mana is ~particularly~ unique in this regard.

It does suck that it's another monkeypatch but that's the problem with physical product that isn't easily mass reproduced or replaced. Chess or checkers pieces can be anything; poker cards have a lot of variants; Super Mario Bros can be adapted to the Super NES for great justice. But old Magic cards are always exactly what the game was at the time they were printed. Quel dommage.

@Sundering Titan - since Wastes have no type I presume you mean they get a boost if you build around typeless land cards? Titan can't blow up Wastes.

[GundamGuy]

@Sundering Titan - since Wastes have no type I presume you mean they get a boost if you build around typeless land cards? Titan can't blow up Wastes.

You are correct, I was looking at Titan and didn't remember that Wastes has no type at the time.

Dang you wizards for preventing me for screwing someone out of there D!

[iamajellydonut]

Your opponent taps a Forest and Cavern of Souls (on Lhurgoyf) and then casts Darmagoyf, is it uncounterable?

Pale Moon suddenly becomes tier 1 shit.

[Octopusman]

EDIT: Nevermind!


I assume Æther Barrier will be errata'd to be D? They're going to need to errata a whole lot more cards than just mana producers.

cards link doesn't work:
From Gatherer: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=22289

[Cire]

EDIT: Nevermind!


I assume Æther Barrier will be errata'd to be D? They're going to need to errata a whole lot more cards than just mana producers.

cards link doesn't work:
From Gatherer: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=22289

No.... it will stay the same. Only (1) produced will be errata'd (we assume), (1) as a cost - which this is - will not.

[TsumiBand]

All the costs stay the same.

Lands that produce colorless mana gain the D symbol. Adarkar Wastes taps for W, U, and D. Temple of the False God will tap for DD, assuming you've paid the kicker cost. Fact or Fiction will NOT cost DDDU; it will continue to cost 3U.

Do I sound like Raymond Babbitt yet? 82 82 82

[keys]

Is it confirmed that they are referring to this as "Devoid" mana or "D" mana, or is this just the general assumption?

Couldn't they just refer to it as "Colorless" mana or "C" mana? (And avoid having to use plane-specific word...)

[rufus]

Is it confirmed that they are referring to this as "Devoid" mana or "D" mana, or is this just the general assumption?

Couldn't they just refer to it as "Colorless" mana or "C" mana? (And avoid having to use plane-specific word...)

AFAIK it's only something I'm doing.

There's a lot of supposition about how things work, but because people have used 'colorless' to refer to generic mana costs in the past, it would be a good idea to use new terms that clearly distinguish between the new colorless-only mana costs, and generic mana costs.

[H]

I don't have screen caps at the moments, but all this has been confirmed on the World Cup coverage.

[Dice_Box]

http://i.imgur.com/azLiHk6.png

From reddit.com:
Ian Duke also offered official confirmation that the new symbol represents colorless mana - including that this would be the only notation used for such going forward.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TrickMTG/status/675303346681593856

I just won 50 bucks.

[Barook]

Couldn't they just refer to it as "Colorless" mana or "C" mana? (And avoid having to use plane-specific word...)

If the Twitter post above is any indication, they'll go with "C" instead of "D".

[iamajellydonut]

If the Twitter post above is any indication, they'll go with "C" instead of "D".

Damn shame.


Ian Duke also offered official confirmation that the new symbol represents colorless mana - including that this would be the only notation used for such going forward.

It's good to hear that a set mechanic (not even block mechanic) will be perverting card faces for the rest of time.

[Dice_Box]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TrickMTG/status/675323107884834816

https://mobile.twitter.com/TrickMTG/status/675306724736303108

[Cire]

Damn shame.


We can always just be iconoclasts on this board and still use D. :smile:

With C . . . we have these fun words to use if a deck ever comes around with those colors: CUB, CUR, CURB . . . :frown: not as good as DRUG or BUD. . .

[Dice_Box]

CURB . . . :frown: not as good as DRUG or BUD. . .
Well now we can nickname Grixis Control "Traffic cop" since it will now be "CURB Control".

[Cire]

Well now we can nickname Grixis Control "Traffic cop" since it will now be "CURB Control".

As soon as we get one good C/D card in that deck, that's exactly what i'm going to do!

[H]

If there are real pushed cards that have :C: in their costs, it would have a very interesting effect on mana-bases as we know them.

Since it's doubtful any will actually see play outside Standard though, chances are this change means very little to us.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

Elemental Resonance

Enchant permanent
At the beginning of your precombat main phase, add mana equal to enchanted permanent's mana cost to your mana pool. (Mana cost includes color. If a mana symbol has multiple colors, choose one.)


How will that work on a <>?

[Stinky-Dinkins]

How will this work with reflecting pool?

EDIT: Just checked. Reflecting pool says "type" not "color" as I thought I remembered, so I guess it would replicate C.

SO cards like Ancient Tomb, City of Traitors, etc. all produce multiple C now that "colorless" type will be erratta'd to C on mana producers? Pretty cool if they print decent C cards going forward.

I've been out of the loop for a few weeks, so cards that specifically have C as a casting cost MUST be cast specifically with C and not just generic mana from any land?

[iamajellydonut]

How will this work with reflecting pool?

EDIT: Just checked. Reflecting pool says "type" not "color" as I thought I remembered, so I guess it would replicate C.

5/1/2008: The types of mana are white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Yeah, for some reason I would've bet money Reflecting Pool said "Color", not "Type". Realized that after looking it up after I posted.

[Dice_Box]

For those who care, the bet I made on The Mana Drain has been paid.

[Richard Cheese]

if there are real pushed cards that have :c: In their costs, it would have a very interesting effect on mana-bases as we know them.

Since it's doubtful any will actually see play outside standard though, chances are this change means very little to us.

That's what they said about flip cards!

We're all gonna diiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeee

[phonics]

So does this mean that cards that have more than 1 colorless in their mana cost would have seperate symbols for each colorless mana (like jtms = DDUU)?

[rufus]

So does this mean that cards that have more than 1 colorless in their mana cost would have seperate symbols for each colorless mana (like jtms = DDUU)?

The mana cost for jace is generic, not colorless, so he'd still be 2UU.

Cards with properly colorless costs do get separate symbols for each:
http://i.imgur.com/RIvZJbi.png

[H]

That's what they said about flip cards!

We're all gonna diiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeee

Haha, meh, in the hierarchy of abominations, colored Artifacts are first to me, then the big mana symbol on Baisc Lands, then flip cards. I'm not even sure if :C: makes the top 5.

I honestly feel like this is a fine change, but I am sure I am the minority in that thinking. The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak, as in we'll see what they manage to do with this and judge it from there.

[Zombie]

Haha, meh, in the hierarchy of abominations, colored Artifacts are first to me, then the big mana symbol on Baisc Lands, then flip cards. I'm not even sure if :C: makes the top 5.

I honestly feel like this is a fine change, but I am sure I am the minority in that thinking. The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak, as in we'll see what they manage to do with this and judge it from there.

Games like Magic are complicated beasts. The more unequivocal we can make the rules, the better. It's not like the distinction between colorless and generic mana didn't already exist in the comp rules. This change simply visualizes that and opens some new and very interesting design space. I, for one, welcome our new <> overlords.

[Barook]

Haha, meh, in the hierarchy of abominations, colored Artifacts are first to me, then the big mana symbol on Baisc Lands, then flip cards. I'm not even sure if :C: makes the top 5.

I honestly feel like this is a fine change, but I am sure I am the minority in that thinking. The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak, as in we'll see what they manage to do with this and judge it from there.
There's nothing wrong with the big mana symbol on basics imho, but I agree on flip cards and colored artifacts.

I don't mind this change, either, since it opens up design space without having to do something stupid & inbred like purple as color.

The concept is also very easy to grasp, so I don't understand why some people try to have an actual problem with it.

:1:, :2:, :3:, etc = generic mana that can be paid with everything, be it colored or colorless mana
{C}= generated by former colorless mana producers
{C} as cost = a new thing that specified on new cards like the new Kozilek

The only change that is going to happen to old cards is mana production changed from :1: etc. to {C}, but casting or activation costs stay the same.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Games like Magic are complicated beasts. The more unequivocal we can make the rules, the better. It's not like the distinction between colorless and generic mana didn't already exist in the comp rules. This change simply visualizes that and opens some new and very interesting design space. I, for one, welcome our new <> overlords.

Seconded. From someone who hated flip cards and the vast majority of other "innovatioons" of the past several years, I think this is brilliant design... and just via clarification of pre-existing rules. This opens up awesome possibilities.

[DLifshitz]

Is it confirmed that they are referring to this as "Devoid" mana or "D" mana, or is this just the general assumption?

Couldn't they just refer to it as "Colorless" mana or "C" mana? (And avoid having to use plane-specific word...)

Nowadays, they want to have symbols and keywords for everything. There's already a paintbrush to denote 'Illustrated by.' IMO this is an instance of overproduction in the graphic and rules design, in the sense that music can be overproduced. On the other hand, using the :1: symbol for 'one colorless mana' or 'one generic mana' depending on context didn't make a lot of sense, either.

[jrsthethird]

Elemental Resonance

Enchant permanent
At the beginning of your precombat main phase, add mana equal to enchanted permanent's mana cost to your mana pool. (Mana cost includes color. If a mana symbol has multiple colors, choose one.)


How will that work on a <>?

If you enchant a Kozilek, you add 10 colorless mana to your mana pool.

Generic costs are colorless, but colorless mana is not generic. It can be used to pay both generic costs and colorless costs.

[GundamGuy]

Oh boy a new mechanic that is kicked in Two Headed Giant... just what I've always wanted. :rolleyes:

[Barook]

Crush of Tentacles 4UU
Sorcery
Surge 3UU (You may cast this spell for it's surge cost if you or a teammate has cast another spell this turn)
Return all nonland permanents to their owners' hands. if Crush of Tentacle's surge cost was paid, put an 8/8 blue Octopus creature token onto the battlefield.

This mechanic seems breakable if printed on the right card(s). Legacy is choke-full with cheap/free spells and mana accelerants.

[bruizar]

This mechanic seems breakable if printed on the right card(s). Legacy is choke-full with cheap/free spells and mana accelerants.

I'm calling it now

1U
Brainstorm 4 deep
Surge U

[Lemnear]

This mechanic seems breakable if printed on the right card(s). Legacy is choke-full with cheap/free spells and mana accelerants.

You may excuse me being instantly excited about a mechanic what works so well with storm ;)

[Gheizen64]

Yeah, broken U draw spell and overcosted shock with surge incoming.

Let's hope red get something interesting.

Also i'm pretty sure they'll print Surge only on high cmc cards to avoid abuse.

[Zombie]

Yeah, broken U draw spell and overcosted shock with surge incoming.

Let's hope red get something interesting.

Also i'm pretty sure they'll print Surge only on high cmc cards to avoid abuse.

You know they'll fuck it up. In blue, of course.

[Barook]

Yeah, broken U draw spell and overcosted shock with surge incoming.

Let's hope red get something interesting.

Also i'm pretty sure they'll print Surge only on high cmc cards to avoid abuse.
If the Delve spells have shown anything, then it's they don't give a fuck about breaking Eternal formats. I wouldn't be suprised if they printed something broken for Eternal, especially in blue.


You may excuse me being instantly excited about a mechanic what works so well with storm ;)
And I expected more bitching about Kicker variants. :tongue:

[Cire]

Crush of Tentacles 4UU
Sorcery
Surge 3UU (You may cast this spell for it's surge cost if you or a teammate has cast another spell this turn)
Return all nonland permanents to their owners' hands. if Crush of Tentacle's surge cost was paid, put an 8/8 blue Octopus creature token onto the battlefield.

Honestly a 8/8 that bounces all other (non-land) permanents to their owners hands for 3UU is pretty damn good . . . . Combine with Gitaxian Probe aand 0 mana artifacts or . . . Burning-Tree Emissary, Priest of Gix/Urabrask or Lotus Cobra (+ Fetch)

[rufus]

You know they'll fuck it up. In blue, of course.

Honestly, crush of tentacles seems like it could be pretty beefy in decks with mana rocks.

Edit: Ninja'd

[rufus]

Hmmm... now I'm wondering if they'll print a Fork with surge.

[TsumiBand]

Surge is.... interesting? I guess this is somewhat new territory, though it has echoes of Storm in that moar spells = moar goods. But not really. It reminds me of Combo from Hearthstone, but not really.

So, Mox Opal and Lotus Petal are kinda like +2 mana with Surge, right? You cast a 4UU spell on turn 4 by first casting a Lotus Petal or a Chrome Mox or whatever, then pay the Surge cost. I kind of like it, but I want to read more cards with Surge before I decide.

Also I am sad that D is secretly C instead but whatever. It's harder to spell things with Cs. If I were playing Scrabble and six of my tiles were URBCGW I would feel pretty bad about life.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

SUUUUURRGE! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTY8hrvFck8)

Memes aside, what are all the potential busted effects that are likely to be printed with this mechanic? I think it's something like:

-Pump spell (Infect becomes very happy)
-Burn spell
-Cheap removal if Surge'd
-Surge Creature that CITP with undercosted stats
-Surging Rampant Growth/Explosive Vegetation variant
-Tutor effect (based on Dark Petition seeing print)
-Surge draw spell of some sort

Surge is a potentially powerful mechanic, especially in concert with the efficient spells that fill up non-rotating formats. I would be somewhat* surprised if none of the spells with this mechanic saw play.

*Hedging my bet due to the low power level of BFZ.

[Lemnear]

And I expected more bitching about Kicker variants. :tongue:

Yeah, but this is less of a kicker-variant than a pretty easy to turn-on cost-reduction-effect, which is instantly dangerous for Legacy

[TsumiBand]

If they print a playable Surge draw spell, it better be fucking Black. I've been bummed at the prospect of such a spell ever since it was pointed out to me that a Black Treasure Cruise would have been perfectly viable and much more likely to promote diverse deck construction than the banned TC we got.

[Barook]

Yeah, but this is less of a kicker-variant than a pretty easy to turn-on cost-reduction-effect, which is instantly dangerous for Legacy
We can't say for sure that the mechanic automatically promises cost reduction. I could easily see them do "Effect - Surge: More mana with a even more bombastic effect", e.g. Time Warp or Surge Double Time Warp for a humongous manacost, although the blue Mythic slot is probably already taken by the Tentacle Rape Surge card.


Memes aside, what are all the potential busted effects that are likely to be printed with this mechanic? I think it's something like:

-Pump spell (Infect becomes very happy)
-Burn spell
-Cheap removal if Surge'd
-Surge Creature that CITP with undercosted stats
-Surging Rampant Growth/Explosive Vegetation variant
-Tutor effect (based on Dark Petition seeing print)
-Surge draw spell of some sort

Surge is a potentially powerful mechanic, especially in concert with the efficient spells that fill up non-rotating formats. I would be somewhat* surprised if none of the spells with this mechanic saw play.
All those things sound pretty realistic.

- pump spell is a no-brainer
- Burn spell might be either a :1::r: Lightning Strike with a bonus attached if surged or it might turn into a Lightning Bolt (with the latter being rather unlikely)
- very likely, maybe something akin to Tragic Slip where the -X/-X gets a boost if surged or downright turning into Murder
- no brainer
- no brainer
- possible, although hard to predict how that one could turn out
- very likely, but given the rarities we work with, I would expect a spell that costs 4+ mana to draw 2-4 cards, depending on instant/sorcery speed and mana cost - at least I hope it isn't turning into the next coming of the Delve draw spells

I'm kinda torn on the topic - while I'm excited that new cards with the new mechanic could enter the format, chances are they're either going to feed a degenerate engine or go straight into the blue cantrip shell, which kinda sucks.

[death]

Psychatog wants to say 'hi'

[jrsthethird]

All Surge cards have inherent synergy with the Wishes. With Crush, you still have to pay 4UUR, but you only have to run one in a sideboard with a bunch of other good stuff. At least you don't have a 6 mana spell clogging up your hand and your deck (although pitching to FOW is hardly a clog).

[TsumiBand]

Psychatog wants to say 'hi'

Heh, this is probably a more valid comparison than the bulk of discussion about the 4UU Surge spell so far. If it's never been worthwhile in Legacy to Upheaval + Tog, one does wonder if paying 3UU for a less crippling effect is really worth considering.

I know there's a 4 mana difference here, that's not insignificant, but the board state that either series generates is worth comparing - would one rather leave a 3 turn clock and all the lands in play, or a (likely) 1 turn win con and zero land in play? (For that matter, why is it better than SnT, but we know the answer to that)

[Lemnear]

We can't say for sure that the mechanic automatically promises cost reduction. I could easily see them do "Effect - Surge: More mana with a even more bombastic effect", e.g. Time Warp or Surge Double Time Warp for a humongous manacost, although the blue Mythic slot is probably already taken by the Tentacle Rape Surge card.

You are completely correct here ... including the kicker-topic before ;P

[supremePINEAPPLE]

Ancient Tomb expedition!

http://i.imgur.com/HaS6RwB.png

[Dice_Box]

Ancient Tomb expedition!

http://i.imgur.com/HaS6RwB.png
Well now, that's something I didn't see coming.

Seeing how that is bordered and matching it against that line around Gates art makes me less inclined to say that gate was real.

[Barook]

Ancient Tomb expedition!

http://i.imgur.com/HaS6RwB.png
Also, Forbidden Orchard:

http://i67.tinypic.com/o9fya0.png

Now let's hope they print Wasteland as well.

[supremePINEAPPLE]

Karakas would be a great one too if they are breaking out the good stuff.

[Barook]

Karakas would be a great one too if they are breaking out the good stuff.
Karakas is a plane-specific place, so I doubt that. Same reason why we aren't going to get Rishadan Port, unless they say "Fuck it!" and jam Hedrons everywhere on the art.

Wasteland would fit the bill, given that Wastes are actually a thing in OGW. And it's plane-unspecific.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

I like it already!

Its a nice plan B in Combo. I mean if they board out their removal, just Dark ritual into an 8/8.
Burning wishable...

In legacy/modern its obv super easy to setup, rituals, probes, petals. In standard you only have stuff like dures (that is actually great), some spells for R, warden of the first tree and some delve spells...

Also synergy with rebound and suspend.


The last edition was so meh (they spoiled ulamog and I was like whatever ok) but this seems promising! Kozilek, surge, wastemana and they just have spoiled 4 cards -.-

[Lemnear]

I love it when Preview Season starts with SUPER DUPER SPECIAL RARE RANDOM CARDS which are occasional in a booster, rather than with cards of the actual set.

*slowclap*

Another instance of trying to sell a crappy set with "hidden treasures" like we have seen so many times over the last years?

[Barook]

I love it when Preview Season starts with SUPER DUPER SPECIAL RARE RANDOM CARDS which are occasional in a booster, rather than with cards of the actual set.

*slowclap*

Another instance of trying to sell a crappy set with "hidden treasures" like we have seen so many times over the last years?
I don't know, Ancient Tomb and Forbidden Orchard aren't exactly high value bombs to get excited about. If they wanted to go for that route, they probably would have spoiled Wasteland or something similiar.

Besides, the mechanics released so far (Surge and "C") seem far more interesting than anything BFZ shat out. I'm cautiously optimistic that the set isn't going to completely suck like BFZ did.

[tescrin]

i'm cautiously optimistic that the set isn't going to completely suck like bfz did.
hey everyone, got a fanboy here!

;)

[bruizar]

Surge will feature the same lame effects thathave been rinsed repeated for years. Ramoant growth in green, tutor/ritual p/drainlife in black, draw/counter/bounce in blue, random draw discard/draw7/stone rain/bolts/quakes in red, tokens/decree of justice/destroy attacking creatures instant or something equally lame in white, et fucking cetera.

Edit: sent from ipad so forgive the sloppy writing

Prediction: the red one will be the best, just because they want to surprise the players with xmas love for red in the form of 'look we throwin a bone at red and it aint chandra the umpteenth + overcosted burn'

[Aggro_zombies]

I love it when Preview Season starts with SUPER DUPER SPECIAL RARE RANDOM CARDS which are occasional in a booster, rather than with cards of the actual set.

*slowclap*

Another instance of trying to sell a crappy set with "hidden treasures" like we have seen so many times over the last years?
No one gets excited about seventh- to ninth-pick Limited fodder, not even dedicated Limited players. Why would they preview those cards when they could preview something that actually generates discussion and hype?

Put another way: what do you even think previews are for? This seems like a complaint for the sake of complaining.

[joven]

I don't like that <> symbol on mana producers or in general in the text box. It just looks wrong somehow. Poor aesthetic at least the small/normal version.
I think it would have worked just fine without that mega errata plan. (:1: on producers is colorless and :1: in costs is generic and <> in costs is just colorless)

I'm almost sure that Wasteland is one of the 3 last unknown expeditions (so far 10 filter lands, 5 enemy battle lands, Ancient Tomb, Forbidden Orchard).
And I find it actually sad that they didn't do the manlands as expeditions.

[PirateKing]

Ancient Tomb is nice, but City of Traitors would have been more nicer.

Also aren't the expeditions standard legal? So if Wasteland does get the call up, then Wizard's is really doubling down on the most expensive standard ever.

[H]

Ancient Tomb is nice, but City of Traitors would have been more nicer.

Also aren't the expeditions standard legal? So if Wasteland does get the call up, then Wizard's is really doubling down on the most expensive standard ever.

No, Expeditions are only legal in the format's they were already legal in. Although, I think if you draft one you can use it for that event.

[Barook]

Ancient Tomb is nice, but City of Traitors would have been more nicer.

Also aren't the expeditions standard legal? So if Wasteland does get the call up, then Wizard's is really doubling down on the most expensive standard ever.
City of Traitors is on the RL, so that's a big NO-NO.

Expeditions can be used in the draft they're pulled, but they're still only legal for Constructed in the formats they were printed before.

[thecrav]

Ancient Tomb is nice, but City of Traitors would have been more nicer.

Also aren't the expeditions standard legal? So if Wasteland does get the call up, then Wizard's is really doubling down on the most expensive standard ever.

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/battle-zendikar-release-notes-2015-09-23

Zendikar Expeditions cards appearing in Battle for Zendikar booster packs are playable in any Limited event using those booster packs. In a Sealed Deck tournament, those cards are part of your card pool. In a Booster Draft tournament, you must draft those cards for them to be included in your card pool.

However, Zendikar Expeditions cards are not legal in any Constructed format the cards weren't legal in before. Appearing in Battle for Zendikar booster packs does not make them legal in Standard.

[Koby]

Big OGW leak: https://t.co/gp5ihF0wHi

[Dice_Box]

Wasteland, Stripmine and Dust Bowl all fit. I am glad they did that, even if the boarder is not my style.

[ween]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/battle-zendikar-release-notes-2015-09-23


For some reason i just assumed "it came in a booster of the current set, it's legal in standard"

[Watersaw]

Big OGW leak: https://t.co/gp5ihF0wHi

Rough translation of the French card inbound:
Ruins of Sea Gate
[tap]: add <> to your mana pool
2<>, [tap]: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you have no cards in hand.

Seems strong.

[Dice_Box]

Rough translation of the French card inbound:
Ruins of Sea Gate
[tap]: add <> to your mana pool
2<>, [tap]: Draw a card. Activate this ability only if you have no cards in hand.

Seems strong.
No better than Canopy.

[H]

Someone said a rough translation of the Russian land is it taps for <> or one of any color for a Devoid spell.

[apple713]

No better than Canopy.

theres no sacrifice in the cost... its arguably better than canopy in ALOT of ways...



City of Traitors is on the RL, so that's a big NO-NO.

Expeditions can be used in the draft they're pulled, but they're still only legal for Constructed in the formats they were printed before.

I wonder if they are ever going to print a card on the reserve list in some way like this on "accident"

[Finn]

Don't know if this has been said...

The large number of staple and near-staple reprints of colorless mana lands across formats is simply their way of helping us to understand the new mana symbol.

[thecrav]

theres no sacrifice in the cost... its arguably better than canopy in ALOT of ways...

Seems pretty good in a the late game for a deck that doesn't have much in the way of card draw. MUD and stompy decks come to mind immediately. Merfolk could use some card draw too but I don't think that deck has room for many more utility lands.

[PirateKing]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/battle-zendikar-release-notes-2015-09-23

Zendikar Expeditions cards appearing in Battle for Zendikar booster packs are playable in any Limited event using those booster packs. In a Sealed Deck tournament, those cards are part of your card pool. In a Booster Draft tournament, you must draft those cards for them to be included in your card pool.

However, Zendikar Expeditions cards are not legal in any Constructed format the cards weren't legal in before. Appearing in Battle for Zendikar booster packs does not make them legal in Standard.

Shows my lack of knowledge in the standard rules.

[Meekrab]

Buy or Sell Grove of the Burnwillows based on the fact that Horizon Canopy is here and Grove isn't?

[Aggro_zombies]

theres no sacrifice in the cost... its arguably better than canopy in ALOT of ways...
In some ways, not in others. Canopy still taps for colored mana and can get you a card at any time for less mana investment. This is good if you see yourself reliably running out of cards while having a surfeit of (colorless) mana, so some sort of MUD deck looking to go long.

Even that deck can run Canopy, though, and in conjunction with Crucible (which also helps Wasteland and City) I think Canopy is still probably better a lot of the time because of the mana efficiency and not having so many land drops to make in the mid-game.

EDIT: I'm pleasantly surprised Wasteland made it in, though I feel bad for whoever opens Tec Edge as their expedition.

[apple713]

Buy or Sell Grove of the Burnwillows based on the fact that Horizon Canopy is here and Grove isn't?

it is possible that grove is included but not spoiled yet. Due to their rarity its possible it hasn't been opened.

I wonder what that 3cmc Blue and white 2/2 is that is in japanese... anyone?

Also what is that russian land?

[Tanith]

it is possible that grove is included but not spoiled yet. Due to their rarity its possible it hasn't been opened.

I wonder what that 3cmc Blue and white 2/2 is that is in japanese... anyone?

Also what is that russian land?

Geist of Saint Traft, but looking at the edition symbol, seems like the half of it looks like... avacyn restored?

[evanmartyr]

Opening a Kor Haven expedition is gonna just be mega bad feels.

[Aggro_zombies]

Geist of Saint Traft, but looking at the edition symbol, seems like the half of it looks like... avacyn restored?
It's from the next Duel Deck, IIRC. I can't remember the name of it now.

[Koby]

It's from the next Duel Deck, IIRC. I can't remember the name of it now.

Angels vs Demons, Round 2: The Return of the Electric Boogaloo

[Mr.C]

Opening a Kor Haven expedition is gonna just be mega bad feels.

I mean, a foil one is $50.

[jrsthethird]

What about Sphinx of the Final Word in Vintage? Seems busted. If it weren't for Terminus, it would be boss in Reanimator/Show and Tell/Eureka too.

Crumbling Vestige might fit in Amulet Bloom in Modern, as long as Bloom isn't banned.

Kind of annoyed at the new cycle. We don't need more Urborg Volcanoes and Elfhame Palaces. We also have the Guildgates, the Refuges, and the Khans Refuge reprints. I understand that the lifegain affects the Limited format and Gates are mechanically tied to Ravnica. Urborg Volcanoes make no sense on Zendikar, so I hope at least the names are generic enough that we can stop this madness.

The missing Expedition is Flooded Grove. There is no Grove of the Burnwillows.

[nevilshute]

I think Sphinx of the Final Word at least bears mention as a potential miracles hoser out of the sideboard of ANT. Might be 2 mana too expensive, but worth discussing.

[Echelon]

Or as a top end threat in BUG (Pod) Fit.

[apple713]

Or as a top end threat in BUG (Pod) Fit.

its subject to terminus + council's judgement.... not that hard for miracles to deal with.

[Echelon]

its subject to terminus + council's judgement.... not that hard for miracles to deal with.

Just about everything is. That's the problem with Miracles.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Quick thoughts on the spoilers, positive ones first:

-Expeditions look alright (as alright as blatant cashgrabs can). Called it on Wasteland, but did not expect to see Strip Mine, Dust Bowl, and Ancient Tomb. These are definitely cards people will want, even Tectonic Edge.

-Rubble of Sea Gate (the draw when Hellbent land) is very nice. I can see jamming this into plenty of draw-hungry EDH decks (Red and White) as a strong utility land.

-Some of the other colorless matters lands portend of some interesting things. Crumbling Vestige (CITP tapped, taps for colorless, add 1 mana of any color to your mana pool when it comes into play) is really interesting, especially at Common.

-Nissa is a very interesting walker. G/W token superfriends looks like it might be a deck in Standard.

-World Breaker is a weird, but cool fatty...perfect Mythic.

-Geist of St. Traft is an excellent reprint for the Blessed vs Cursed Duel Deck, even if I hate that little Hexproof bastard.

-The new demon (likely a plant in DD: Blessed vs Cursed for Shadows over Innistrad) self mills and has an ability that checks the number of card types in the graveyard. Very interesting. Possible Threshold return?


Now for the fun part...bitching!:

-3CMC Instant speed, colorless sweeper that hits for 2 damage to all creatures at Mythic? "Ha ha, fuck you playerbase!", Wizards chortled, as they blatantly upscaled another staple effect in rarity. The weird "recursion" is mostly just trinket text, as this could end up being a 4-of. If these pre-order for ~$5 I'm picking up dozens of them (ok, fewer than that, because I'm broke after bills and holiday shopping but you get the point). At the very least, Modern R/G Tron loves a sweeper that can be fetched off Ancient Stirrings.

-Another mostly shitty Chandra...what a surprise. Six mana is a lot, and you'd expect something with the impact or utility of Elspeth, but nope, Red shafted once again. Elementals are a mediocre threat and the discard-then-draw effect isn't all that strong unless Red Madness Control becomes a real deck when SoI drops. At least her design is sorta interesting.

-Why did we need another cycle of Coastal Tower?

[QBChaz]

That Devoid Pyroclasm is Mythic!!! Ugh. You know it's going to be fringe playable in Modern (as you point out, Ancient Stirrings, yum!) and so it'll cost way more than a Pyroclasm should. Modern Burn might want it to beat Firewalker. Protection from Red isn't really a thing in Legacy because TNN still doesn't eat it to this so I don't see us using it but this rarity upscaling for situationally worse/better cards is pretty gross. "Yes, you can play Pyroclasm or Volcanic Fallout but in some metas you've got to have this Mythic Rare."

Also, Tec Edge and Kor Haven as expeditions! It seems a little bit random. Some I like (Waste, Strip, Tomb and even Orchard) others just seem a bit random. A Port would have been nice but I suppose it is too Plane specific.

[QBChaz]

I like Crumbling Vestige, an interesting design.

[Zombie]

I like Crumbling Vestige, an interesting design.

Yeah, it's a really great combination of flavour and mechanics. Works splendidly.

[keys]

Really strange they'd print BOTH Wasteland and Strip Mine.

All the expeditions are abominations if you ask me.

The hellbent draw land seems broken in Metalworker MUD. If MUD becomes Tier 1 it might calm the ban Top brigade.

[lordofthepit]

I think Sphinx of the Final Word at least bears mention as a potential miracles hoser out of the sideboard of ANT. Might be 2 mana too expensive, but worth discussing.

I'd consider City of Solitude every single day of the week over this Sphinx, and CoS barely sees any play.

I think Sphinx is really exciting in Vintage though. Might replace Dragonlord Dromoka.

[nevilshute]

I'd consider City of Solitude every single day of the week over this Sphinx, and CoS barely sees any play.

I think Sphinx is really exciting in Vintage though. Might replace Dragonlord Dromoka.

Counterbalance still gets to trigger through CoS which can still be troublesome even if they cant manipulate top. Sphinx ałso beats for 5 :smile:

That said it might be utterly unplayable. Will want test it

[Bobmans]

So will D mana also be something that is gonna be a requitement to the existing artifact's? LIke the activation ability of Sensei's Diving Top will become D rather then (1).

[Echelon]

So will D mana also be something that is gonna be a requitement to the existing artifact's? LIke the activation ability of Sensei's Diving Top will become D rather then (1).

No. They're distinctly different. It costs a generic mana to activate Top, not a colorless mana. The mana you use to active Top can be colorless, but could also be blue, green, any other colour or snow mana.

[Zombie]

So will D mana also be something that is gonna be a requitement to the existing artifact's? LIke the activation ability of Sensei's Diving Top will become D rather then (1).

It's C or <>, not D. And no. The game is structured so that:
Mana is colored or colorless.
Costs have, thus far, been colored, generic or snow. Now there will be colored, colorless, generic and snow costs. Generic costs can be paid with anything, colored and colorless costs need the specific kind shown on the cost symbol. Snow costs have to be paid with mana from a snow permanent.

The only rules change is that they can now demand explicitly colorless costs. Nothing else changes in mechanics, only in appearance (ie. mana abilities output <>).

Sensei's top will cost one generic mana to cast, the ability will cost one generic mana to activate. Sol Ring costs one generic mana to cast, and makes <><>. That mana can be used to pay generic costs and colorless costs.

[Bobmans]

I fucking hate this change already

Thnx for explaining.

[rufus]

...
-Another mostly shitty Chandra...what a surprise. Six mana is a lot, and you'd expect something with the impact or utility of Elspeth, but nope, Red shafted once again. Elementals are a mediocre threat and the discard-then-draw effect isn't all that strong unless Red Madness Control becomes a real deck when SoI drops. At least her design is sorta interesting.
...

OTOH new Nissa looks really strong. Very much in the same template as gideon: token maker, team buff, and planeswalker characteristic ability.

Not that I think it will see constructed play, but how is that sphinx of the steel wind ability on a blue creature, rather than a red one?



...
Counterbalance still gets to trigger through CoS which can still be troublesome even if they cant manipulate top.
...

Yeah, but the triggered ability still won't counter instants or sorceries.

I'm not a huge fan of "{C} represents colorless mana" as explanatory text on cards with {C} costs - it really ought to be "{C} can be paid with colorless mana" like the template on phyrexian mana spells or delve.

[rufus]

...
Costs have, thus far, been colored, generic or snow. Now there will be colored, colorless, generic and snow costs. Generic costs can be paid with anything, colored and colorless costs need the specific kind shown on the cost symbol. Snow costs have to be paid with mana from a snow permanent.

The list of types of mana cost is longer than that: phyrexian mana, delve, hybrid mana and convoke are also types of mana cost. In addition, there's a grey area with cards like Drain Life, Imperiosaur, and Myr Superion that have card-specific restrictions on how their mana costs can be paid.

[iamajellydonut]

Poor Nissa...

[Cire]

Crumbling Vestige
Land C
Crumbling Vestige enters the battlefield tapped.
When Crumbling Vestige enters the battlefield, add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
T: Add ◊ to your mana pool.

Tendo Ice Bridge with the restriction that you must make colored mana when it first enters the battlefield at common?

That's pretty cool!

[lordofthepit]

Counterbalance still gets to trigger through CoS which can still be troublesome even if they cant manipulate top. Sphinx ałso beats for 5 :smile:

That said it might be utterly unplayable. Will want test it

I agree with what you said, but I would postulate that being vulnerable to a blind Counterbalance without manipulation of any form (City of Solitude) is better than being completely safe from Counterbalance or counterspells but remaining susceptible to shenanigans like Surgical Extraction, Vendilion Clique, and Venser.

Actually being uncounterable and representing a quick clock are real advantages, but so is being 4 mana cheaper. :)

[rufus]

Poor Nissa...

Huh... the spoiled Nissa is very strong.

[iamajellydonut]

huh... The spoiled nissa is very strong.

+1: MAKE A FUKKEN PLANT
-2: BUFF THE PLANT

So aggressive.

[Barook]

I can't see Sea Gate Ruins outside of MUD, to be honest. Might be cool there, especially if you run Bottled Cloister, although the drawback if destroyed might be too great compared to Coercive Portal.


+1: MAKE A FUKKEN PLANT
-2: BUFF THE PLANT

So aggressive.
I don't know, paired up with equipment and/or Exalted, it might get there. I just can't see a shell for it yet.

It would be hilarious if Elves deployed it as Anti-Miracles tech in the end. :tongue:

[Lemnear]

It would be hilarious if Elves deployed it as Anti-Miracles tech in the end. :tongue:

Worse tuan bitterblossom and the enchantment has the problem of being toooooo fucking slow

[Julian23]

Step 1: Deploy Plant Token
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT!

You guys better start selling your Terminus and Counterbalcnes before it's too late. :eek:

[GundamGuy]

Sure am Glad that they introduced C mana... and then proceeded to keep printing Devoid cards...

Good Job?

[ReAnimator]

New Nissa seems pretty strong for a T2 walker.

Her with Hardened Scales and a wide token based approach is pretty strong honestly.

Legacy, not so much, but she's not built for that.

[TsumiBand]

Sure am Glad that they introduced C mana... and then proceeded to keep printing Devoid cards...

Good Job?

Yeah honestly the whole dicking with color thing doesn't appeal much to me. While many aspects of the game should be fair game for experimentation, color is at the center of so many other mechanics that it doesn't seem to make sense to me to intentionally skirt it while also asking for a colored cost.

[rufus]

I can't see Sea Gate Ruins outside of MUD, to be honest. Might be cool there, especially if you run Bottled Cloister, although the drawback if destroyed might be too great compared to Coercive Portal.

Paying :4: for a card isn't really great by legacy standards, even without the hellbent condition.



I don't know, paired up with equipment and/or Exalted, it might get there. I just can't see a shell for it yet.


I don't think it will find a home in legacy, but that doesn't make it a weak card.

[joven]

Crap, they did it again. I hate incomplete cycles of dual lands! And yet another simple tapland cycle is just stupid.

Also, Tectonic Edge as Expedition seems wrong. It was just reprinted in Commander 2014. Was that a last minute replacement for something else??
Strip Mine making an appearance is funny.

Kozilek's Return is almost tailor-made for RG Tron. Sick!

[GundamGuy]

Yeah honestly the whole dicking with color thing doesn't appeal much to me. While many aspects of the game should be fair game for experimentation, color is at the center of so many other mechanics that it doesn't seem to make sense to me to intentionally skirt it while also asking for a colored cost.

I think messing with colors isn't awful, but I agree with you that Devoid is an awful mechanic and one that speaks to a real design failure... a failure that I thought C would fix... but apparently not.

Some of these lands seem like they are on the cusp of playable.

[Cire]

I think messing with colors isn't awful, but I agree with you that Devoid is an awful mechanic and one that speaks to a real design failure... a failure that I thought C would fix... but apparently not.

Some of these lands seem like they are on the cusp of playable.

Well C or <> doesn't seem to have a mechanical identity as far as we know - and neither does devoid, so it doesn't really change anything. Being Colorless through use of C/<> or being colorless through devoid is just a thematic attribute instead of mechanical.

[Barook]

I think messing with colors isn't awful, but I agree with you that Devoid is an awful mechanic and one that speaks to a real design failure... a failure that I thought C would fix... but apparently not.

Some of these lands seem like they are on the cusp of playable.
It's basically just Limited bullshit.

I agree that Devoid is dumb as hell - it costs colored mana - but it isn't colored. Wow. Such design. Much Eldrazi. Wow.

[GundamGuy]

Being Colorless through use of C/<> or being colorless through devoid is just a thematic attribute instead of mechanical.

Maybe that's Wizard's intention, but that new Mythic Pyroclasm... (ugh...) is on R/G Tron's radar because it's devoid. (Meaning devoid / C isn't just Thematic)

My hope was that they would start developing a mechanical idenity for C this set and remove Devoid Eldrazi. IMO Devoid Eldrazi existed because they wanted to have some deck construction constraints while printing these creatures. C was sold to me as being a new constraint on deck construction.

I'm just complaining, but it would have been nice to see follow though on this "promise"...

[Richard Cheese]

Sure am Glad that they introduced C mana... and then proceeded to keep printing Devoid cards...

Good Job?

AND they made a land that not only makes "colorless" mana, but mana of any color, but only for "colorless" cards.

It's like the design team gets their inspiration from Jaden Smith tweets.

[Barook]

AND they made a land that not only makes "colorless" mana, but mana of any color, but only for "colorless" cards.

It's like the design team gets their inspiration from Jaden Smith tweets.
"How Can Eldrazi Be Real If Our Colors Aren't Real"

:eek:

[Cire]

AND they made a land that not only makes "colorless" mana, but mana of any color, but only for "colorless" cards.

It's like the design team gets their inspiration from Jaden Smith tweets.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[iamajellydonut]

I can't see Sea Gate Ruins outside of MUD, to be honest. Might be cool there, especially if you run Bottled Cloister, although the drawback if destroyed might be too great compared to Coercive Portal.

Don't worry. I have a plan.

A Modern plan.

No, I'm not proud.

[Barook]

Don't worry. I have a plan.

A Modern plan.

No, I'm not proud.
What exactly are you thinking about? Affinity? That's one of the few decks that could be heavily colorless and empties its hand quickly.

[Aggro_zombies]

It's basically just Limited bullshit.

I agree that Devoid is dumb as hell - it costs colored mana - but it isn't colored. Wow. Such design. Much Eldrazi. Wow.
Devoid is a mechanic mostly for Limited, but I would in no way call it a design failure. Yeah, it looks kind of silly, and yeah, C mana in costs now means that you can make colorless Eldrazi that aren't castable by every deck, but Devoid is still probably the best solution to the question of, "How do we make the Eldrazi colorless but still make decks with lots of Eldrazi play differently from each other in Draft and Sealed?".

[iamajellydonut]

What exactly are you thinking about? Affinity? That's one of the few decks that could be heavily colorless and empties its hand quickly.


X*Ravnica Signets
4*Cavern of Souls
4*Sea Gate Ruins
4*Tectonic Edge
=lods of emone

[Barook]

Devoid is a mechanic mostly for Limited, but I would in no way call it a design failure. Yeah, it looks kind of silly, and yeah, C mana in costs now means that you can make colorless Eldrazi that aren't castable by every deck, but Devoid is still probably the best solution to the question of, "How do we make the Eldrazi colorless but still make decks with lots of Eldrazi play differently from each other in Draft and Sealed?".
Except Devoid is barely relevant mechanically and more of a useless flavor thing.

How often is e.g. Crumble to Dust having Devoid mechanically relevant? It isn't good enough for Eternal, so Hydroblast/BEB are already out.

@iamajellydonut: What's your plan? Signet Tribal? :eyebrow:

[iamajellydonut]

@iamajellydonut: What's your plan? Signet Tribal? :eyebrow:

:V

Maybe?

Mostly it's a way to ramp, make your crap uncounterable, disrupt your opponent, and keep a good flow of cards. All in one package. Your color requirements would have to be kinda flimsy (no Cryptic Command at the very least) and you couldn't hardcore ramp without exposing yourself to what would be otherwise trivial shit like artifact hate, but from that you could move onto a bunch of other shells. Instinct is pushing me towards Thragtusk.dec, but really whatever.

[square_two]

What exactly are you thinking about? Affinity? That's one of the few decks that could be heavily colorless and empties its hand quickly.

I thought he'd mention Ensnaring Bridge since it pairs very well with Bottled Cloister. Cloister + new land means you are drawing 2 extra cards a turn.

[Aggro_zombies]

Except Devoid is barely relevant mechanically and more of a useless flavor thing.

How often is e.g. Crumble to Dust having Devoid mechanically relevant? It isn't good enough for Eternal, so Hydroblast/BEB are already out.
Suppose you start design of the set with the constraint that all Eldrazi and Eldrazi magic must be colorless. This is reasonable because the mechanically unique thing about the Eldrazi is their colorlessness (but non-artifact-ness). Now, suppose the entire set makes it to print as-is, except all the Devoid spells are actually colorless with mana cost equal to their CMC, such that - for example - Brood Warden costs :6: rather than :4::g::g:.

How does this impact Limited?

First, the major differentiating factor between Eldrazi-heavy decks is the removal. Colored creatures being used as filler can also differentiate the decks, as can colored bombs, but the removal is going to outweigh both of those because you're not guaranteed a bomb and the ease with which you can control your opponent's board development, as well as the kinds of threats you can remove, will dictate how strong your deck is. This greatly reduces variety in the Limited format and gives it less replayability.

Second, it greatly changes the matchup profile of decks in the format. Ally decks trying to go wide can have an easier or more difficult time against various Eldrazi decks depending on how many Scions those decks can make as well as how easily those decks can remove key synergy creatures. In a world of all-colorless Eldrazi, every deck can run - or side in - the currently green Scion-spamming Eldrazi to gum up the ground, which is a huge boon for late-game synergy decks like UB Processors or control decks like some builds of UW.

Third, it greatly changes how you draft the set. Your ideal draft strategy would now be to take the most powerful colorless cards first, then see what color(s) are open and commit sometime late in pack one or the middle of pack two, so players would spend much more time making speculative or power-based picks. Doing that would also erode signalling and make quality removal more scarce. Furthermore, every deck, even Ally-based ones, would likely end up with a few Eldrazi in it, which kind of undermines the flavor through-line they want of Eldrazi vs. Zendikar, where the Zendikari-based decks tend not to run tons of Eldrazi and vice versa.

So yeah, Devoid might not be doing tons of work in terms of mechanical relevance, but what it does do is let them keep all Eldrazi colorless but still have different Eldrazi decks behave differently.

[GundamGuy]

So yeah, Devoid might not be doing tons of work in terms of mechanical relevance, but what it does do is let them keep all Eldrazi colorless but still have different Eldrazi decks behave differently.

Or they could have introduced C a set earlier and worked on fleshing out what the mechanical identity of C was.

[maharis]

Nissa goes on the pile of "interesting in long, grindy games" cards.

3 cmc walker that comes down with a blocker, goes to 4 loyalty, and ticks up to Sphinx's Revelation isn't the worst. Puts you in the awkward position of having to deal with what is really just an 0/1 machine while there are probably other threats being deployed. Also good with other token producers, equipment, and pump effects.

[Bobmans]

That Chandra is near to being super awesome. I really like the concept of this card, except the casting cost makes it near unplayable.
The +1 ability delivers some solid punching power and closes games fast.
The 0 ability is a nice CA. It is always draw a card and can filter lands or dead cards.
And the -x is very good. Variable Pyroclasm with the +1 to follow up.

[Barook]

Nissa goes on the pile of "interesting in long, grindy games" cards.

3 cmc walker that comes down with a blocker, goes to 4 loyalty, and ticks up to Sphinx's Revelation isn't the worst. Puts you in the awkward position of having to deal with what is really just an 0/1 machine while there are probably other threats being deployed. Also good with other token producers, equipment, and pump effects.
For what it's worth, she seems nice with Doubling Season - more tokens, more counters, Ult is within reach of 1 turn (or 2 if you want her to survive). But that's more of an EDH thing.

[iamajellydonut]

Doubling Season ... But that's more of an EDH thing.

And something that's true of all planeswalkers.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Nissa goes on the pile of "interesting in long, grindy games" cards.

3 cmc walker that comes down with a blocker, goes to 4 loyalty, and ticks up to Sphinx's Revelation isn't the worst. Puts you in the awkward position of having to deal with what is really just an 0/1 machine while there are probably other threats being deployed. Also good with other token producers, equipment, and pump effects.

Nissa + Gideon is a lot of dudes and also a lot of potential to pump said dudes. Add Hangarback Walker and Sorin and the deck builds itself.

[Cire]

Nissa + Gideon is a lot of dudes and also a lot of potential to pump said dudes. Add Hangarback Walker and Sorin and the deck builds itself.

Sounds like a modern deck that can't beat splinter twin :tongue:

[Richard Cheese]

Or they could have introduced C a set earlier and worked on fleshing out what the mechanical identity of C was.

This 10000000000000000000000000000 times. We've already done an Eldrazi set that had big colorless bombs, along with actual colored Eldrazi creatures and spells, and nobody lost their shit. In fact, I understand it was one of the best draft formats in recent history.

If you're going to change a really basic aspect of the game and errata cards going back ~25 years, fine. It makes a ton of sense mechanically. But for fucks sake don't half-ass it like it's just another shitty throwaway keyword. Make it a big deal. Give it some fanfare. Do back to back blocks that feature the Eldrazi. Make it a fucking saga. Really all I want is to feel like this was a well thought-out decision that was made to improve the game mechanically long-term, not just another goddamn fly-by-night design experiment.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Sounds like a modern deck that can't beat splinter twin :tongue:

I'm talking standard here. I don't think there's any reason to run Nissa in Modern when we can play Lingering Souls and Spectral Procession in the 3-drop slot.

[Barook]

Do back to back blocks that feature the Eldrazi. Make it a fucking saga.
There's some speculation about Shadows over Innistrad that Avacyn is going to get corrupted, most likely by the missing Emrakul. The reference to "The Shadow over Innsmouth" probably isn't a coincidence.

[thecrav]

I'm just waiting for the cardbacks to be changed to "Eldrazi: The Gathering"

[Cire]

Unrelated, but in going through cards from the last set - The oracle rulings for void winnower include." Yes, your opponent can’t even. We know." Which made me laugh http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=402093

[Darkenslight]

So will D mana also be something that is gonna be a requitement to the existing artifact's? LIke the activation ability of Sensei's Diving Top will become D rather then (1).

It's {C} man-a.

...I'm not sure if that pun is as bad asas all the dick jokes or not.

[Aggro_zombies]

That Chandra is near to being super awesome. I really like the concept of this card, except the casting cost makes it near unplayable.
The +1 ability delivers some solid punching power and closes games fast.
The 0 ability is a nice CA. It is always draw a card and can filter lands or dead cards.
And the -x is very good. Variable Pyroclasm with the +1 to follow up.
As a Commander player with an on-again, off-again love for Big Red decks, the new Chandra is cash money. Her +1 is minor, sure, and it doesn't protect her, but six disposable damage isn't the worst and the haste element is decent against control decks. Her 0 and minus ability are both great, though - cast all your relevant spells, then 0 to discard a bunch of lands and chaff and gas up again. She's significantly better than the other six-mana Chandra in that regard.

[TsumiBand]

As a Commander player with an on-again, off-again love for Big Red decks, the new Chandra is cash money. Her +1 is minor, sure, and it doesn't protect her, but six disposable damage isn't the worst and the haste element is decent against control decks. Her 0 and minus ability are both great, though - cast all your relevant spells, then 0 to discard a bunch of lands and chaff and gas up again. She's significantly better than the other six-mana Chandra in that regard.

Yeah, I don't think they could have just let Red get that kind of pitch-and-draw effect for any less than 6 mana. Maybe 5, with less loyalty, but almost certainly not "on a stick".

I could imagine times where her -X ability just sets her up to be safe for one turn (like you only pay -2 or -3 and wreck the board of small disgusting nobodies) while you reap value any number of turns afterwards. Like honestly if you did get value out of her in that way it almost wouldn't matter if she ever got counters or if the opponent Tims her or some shit FTW, because that kind of card advantage is seldom in Red to begin with.

[tescrin]

I think Punishing Nic Fit could use her. She closes fast, she's yet-another-sweeper, and she's card filtering. Pump her out T3 and good luck to your newly-boardwiped opponent on a 3-turn clock.

I realize Nic Fit is hardly the end-all right now; but every little bit helps.

[Barook]

I just realized how well the new Nissa goes with Evolutionary Leap - it might not be Legacy-good, but it might be good enough for Modern and it certainly is going to be good enough for Standard.

Edit: Brb, hoarding Leaps.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

She's significantly better than the other six-mana Chandra in that regard.

When it comes to drawing/filtering in Mono Red EDH, I'd generally prefer Ablaze in most scenarios for two reasons. One, her card advantage generation takes only one turn cycle, which is relevant given how unlikely planeswalkers are to survive multiple turn cycles in a typical EDH game (especially in Mono Red). Second, the mini-wheel effect is huge against any decks that draw tons of cards or sculpt their hands (i.e. most "good" decks), helping put the Red deck on more even footing while generating up to +3CA.

Flamecaller is an interesting design, but she seems pretty weak in most every format.

[jrsthethird]

I just realized how well the new Nissa goes with Evolutionary Leap - it might not be Legacy-good, but it might be good enough for Modern and it certainly is going to be good enough for Standard.

Edit: Brb, hoarding Leaps.

Only so much value in BFZ Event Decks to go around tho.


When it comes to drawing/filtering in Mono Red EDH, I'd generally prefer Ablaze in most scenarios for two reasons. One, her card advantage generation takes only one turn cycle, which is relevant given how unlikely planeswalkers are to survive multiple turn cycles in a typical EDH game (especially in Mono Red). Second, the mini-wheel effect is huge against any decks that draw tons of cards or sculpt their hands (i.e. most "good" decks), helping put the Red deck on more even footing while generating up to +3CA.

Flamecaller is an interesting design, but she seems pretty weak in most every format.

But Ablaze is only 1/99. Need more Chandra action.

[Barook]

Only so much value in BFZ Event Decks to go around tho.
Those aren't on MTGO, though. Bought 34 copies of Leap for ~ 0.6 Tix each now and see how it goes since I'm fully convinced it's going to be a thing sooner or later. I'm still pissed I only bought 8 Painful Truths back then when they were only 0.08$ (now they're ~1.5 $ already).

I could imagine a deck with OGW Nissa and BFZ Gideon (both produce tokens and can buff their team) since they overlap and synergize so much in functionality and are on curve. With up to 8 token-producing Planeswalkers, Den Protectors to fetch and loop and a few Leaps thrown it, it might become a deck.
Edit: You could also throw in Hangarback Walker into said deck with Leap and Nissa for even more synergy.

[Darkenslight]

Those aren't on MTGO, though. Bought 34 copies of Leap for ~ 0.6 Tix each now and see how it goes since I'm fully convinced it's going to be a thing sooner or later. I'm still pissed I only bought 8 Painful Truths back then when they were only 0.08$ (now they're ~1.5 $ already).

I could imagine a deck with OGW Nissa and BFZ Gideon (both produce tokens and can buff their team) since they overlap and synergize so much in functionality and are on curve. With up to 8 token-producing Planeswalkers, Den Protectors to fetch and loop and a few Leaps thrown it, it might become a deck.
Edit: You could also throw in Hangarback Walker into said deck with Leap and Nissa for even more synergy.

There's actually a pretty insane Abzan Super Tokens deck in Standard with these three 'walkers. Bonus points if you can manage to get their littler friends in on the action. I'm working on it now.

[Bobmans]

But Ablaze is only 1/99. Need more Chandra action.

Agreed. Ablaze is pretty cool tech aswell. Had that one in a Big Red Wildfire lock deck. When i got her online it wrecks decks, but the manabase was to unstable.
The new Flamecaller is going to make an appearance in my signature Pfire NicFit list. Just for the sake of having it done. The list is build to support RR.




There's actually a pretty insane Abzan Super Tokens deck in Standard with these three 'walkers. Bonus points if you can manage to get their littler friends in on the action. I'm working on it now.

Little more then a year ago i had a Junk NicFit list with token walkers, doubling season and academy rector (also stuff lik Moat, Humility, Lingering Souls and whatnot ). Pretty juice. The list was built for a friend as a happy celebration deck, ending up winning 3-0 from TA, DnT and Elves. Much fun...

[rufus]

There's actually a pretty insane Abzan Super Tokens deck in Standard with these three 'walkers. Bonus points if you can manage to get their littler friends in on the action. I'm working on it now.

No love for Retreat to Emeria or Defend the Wastes? Maybe 4-color for Unified Front? The token horde is real this standard.

...

From the department of bad ideas: Anyone think we'll see a 'Kozilek converge' that cares about the different types of mana, so that you can get value for using colorless or can "go to 6"?

[Cire]

Btw I don't know if anyone else saw this - but I'm pretty upset. . . seems like this whole colorless mana thing is Set specific: "it’s not something that has the design legs for evergreen status." (http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/135263925618/hey-maro-i-just-have-one-question-on-why-exactly)

[GundamGuy]

Btw I don't know if anyone else saw this - but I'm pretty upset. . . seems like this whole colorless mana thing is Set specific: "it’s not something that has the design legs for evergreen status." (http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/135263925618/hey-maro-i-just-have-one-question-on-why-exactly)

Oh boy, sure am glad that they decided (needlessly) to erata 20+ years of magic cards for a mechanic that they aren't even thinking of as being evergreen... ... yep...

Has anyone checked lately to make sure Maro hasn't been replaced with a robot designed to troll us?

[keys]

Btw I don't know if anyone else saw this - but I'm pretty upset. . . seems like this whole colorless mana thing is Set specific: "it’s not something that has the design legs for evergreen status." (http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/135263925618/hey-maro-i-just-have-one-question-on-why-exactly)

You shouldn't clip the quote:

The permanent change is how we represent colorless mana. The “diamond” symbol is now part of Magic. The “colored mana matters” part was a good way to justify the change and have it do something with all the focus, but it’s not something that has the design legs for evergreen status.

The <> symbol is staying. You just won't have creatures with <> mana costs every set (same as Phyrexian mana). I don't think anyone expected to see this in every set going forward...

[Cire]

You shouldn't clip the quote:

The permanent change is how we represent colorless mana. The “diamond” symbol is now part of Magic. The “colored mana matters” part was a good way to justify the change and have it do something with all the focus, but it’s not something that has the design legs for evergreen status.

The <> symbol is staying. You just won't have creatures with <> mana costs every set (same as Phyrexian mana). I don't think anyone expected to see this in every set going forward...

I know C is staying. . . its just upsetting that such a massive change isn't going to be used as an evergreen mechanic. Some of us (or at least me) expected that going forward that there will be some C cards in each set going forward to showcase that C is distinct from artifacts, and to justify the huge errata. . . if this is going to be a set specific mechanic, then they could have just gotten away with rules text stating {X mana of this cost must be paid in colorless mana}.

I think C is fundamentally different than P mana or S mana. . . in that it should be evergreen. It's flavor can change depending on the set and it is useful in balancing artifacts. . .

But I guess should, could, and is are totally different things :frown:

[GundamGuy]

I don't think anyone expected to see this in every set going forward...

A lot of people here did expect exactly that, and saw this as a big change in Magic, a fundimental shift that allows new direction for card creation etc... spells with colorless reqirements (CR is harder to cast then 1R), artifacts that don't just fit in every deck ever... etc... so much design space to explore with C...

But I guess Wizards doesn't see it that way, and would rather just give us more set specific kicker varriants.

[TsumiBand]

oh my fuck it isn't kicker

swear to god


coj64 asked: Hi Mark, you've said that the colorless mana symbol was introduce to help newer players differentiate between colorless mana and generic mana. You've also said that why it's not evergreen, it will show up in future sets. Since Magic is already a fairly complicated game to explain to newer players, why add an extra layer of complexity to the learning curve for such a minimal addition that mattered for one small set? Seems counter productive.

Two things are happening:

1. We’ve changed what the colorless mana symbol looks like. That is a permanent change that will be seen in just about every set.

2. We have a “colorless mana matters” theme. That is for Oath of the Gatewatch. If it’s successful, perhaps we’ll bring it back in another world it makes sense in, but it’s not going to be an evergreen thing.

The big change we made is #1. The existence of #2 made us finally get around to it.

So the symbol is the permanent change, but there won't be a bunch of colorless spells moving forward. That's the "non-evergreen" part of it, not the whole concept.

[Cire]

So the symbol is the permanent change, but there won't be a bunch of colorless spells moving forward. That's the "non-evergreen" part of it, not the whole concept.

But that is the whole concept . . . I don't really care about the aesthetic point of having colorless lands make (C) instead of (1). . . I cared about stuff requiring (C), as that actually mattered.

[GundamGuy]

oh my fuck it isn't kicker

swear to god



So the symbol is the permanent change, but there won't be a bunch of colorless spells moving forward. That's the "non-evergreen" part of it, not the whole concept.

I read it slighty differently. "colorless mana matters theme" to me means C in the casting cost of cards and activated abilities of cards.

They might bring it back, but it still really sucks that they would make this huge change that introduces a fucking ton of new design space and then say... eh... we don't plan to use any of that...

Personally, I feel like this was one of the biggest and most intresting changes to magic in years... so to then hear... that they aren't planning to run with it... is extremely disapointing.

Also the comment about kicker, was about the next set. When we'll totally get a new kicker variant with a set specific name that'll show up on like 10 cards ever...

[tescrin]

oh my fuck it isn't kicker

swear to god
http://i68.tinypic.com/fvxr1s.jpg

[Richard Cheese]

I love this new kicked up version of Magic!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/17/6b/80/176b80fc43705ffcd1f75813139dd90d.gif

[Ace/Homebrew]

Wizard's next variant is called 'goat-kicker'. :tongue:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/28/article-2332281-1A0A54EA000005DC-977_634x368.jpg

It's going to be baaaaad.

[joven]

Concerning all that "<> in cost not evergreen"-talk, I just hope WotC don't make the mistake to flavorably tie "<> in costs" exclusively to Eldrazi (or other colorless-but-not-artifact themes). That would really be wasting a lot of design space.
I guess I could live with the fact that "<> in costs" isn't used in _every_ future set.
Still, it will take me a long time to get to a point where I feel comfortable with the new <> symbol, if ever! This change is too big for a oneshot mechanic in my opinion.

[Barook]

Disappointed how they made C a throwaway mechanic instead of taking their time to explore it.

But pretty much everything reeks of their laziness nowadays. :rolleyes:

[iamajellydonut]

We thought long and hard about how we could most effectively waste design space. You know, simple things like Searing Spear into Lightning Strike just weren't cutting it. So, I brought it up in a meeting one day. "What if we add a sixth color, but we do it only for a single set."

Every time I read bullshit like this, I struggle to understand how this game manages to draw breath.

[Cire]

Every time I read bullshit like this, I struggle to understand how this game manages to draw breath.

You forgot to include the bit where they decide to errata past colorless producers (in the same block even) just to implement this set specific change.

[Barook]

Every time I read bullshit like this, I struggle to understand how this game manages to draw breath.
Because this glorious Mofo

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=74250&type=card

fucking nailed it with MtG and Wizards still hasn't managed to completely ruin his masterpiece 22 years later - and goddamn, they're trying, especially with MTGO.

[rufus]

Concerning all that "<> in cost not evergreen"-talk, I just hope WotC don't make the mistake to flavorably tie "<> in costs" exclusively to Eldrazi (or other colorless-but-not-artifact themes). That would really be wasting a lot of design space....

There was some bit about <> costs being Kozilek - only. Probably restricted to that because there just wasn't enough design space in the mechanic. :laugh:

[Quasim0ff]

There was some bit about <> costs being Kozilek - only. Probably restricted to that because there just wasn't enough design space in the mechanic. :laugh:

That's the entire point... Making a mana-cost a block-thing only is just dumb...

But then again, we have had other weird kicker varians before.

[maharis]

I actually remember thinking something seemed off when I opened a Sol Ring in a Commander deck (the first thing I bought when I came back to the game after ~10 years) and saw "Add :2: to your mana pool." Seeing this change has sort of elucidated it for me.

That being said, if they're not planning to have it matter that much, I don't think the change needed to be made and is now just needlessly confusing and ugly. I got used to :1: representing colorless and generic. Now you've got people asking if you need CCC to pay for Mana Leak. Which I don't think is that stupid of a question. I think it's more intuitive to see the :1: symbol as meaning "mana of any type" in costs, and "colorless mana" in effects . Now you've got some :1:s and friends being errata'd to C, but others are not being errata'd, and the intuitive part is gone.

To template this without the change, you do use a lot of space. Could it have worked?

You must use at least two colorless mana
to cast Kozilek, The Great Distortion.

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

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

This is pretty much what's there now minus Menace and the flavor text (but the same amount of total text lines). Clearly this fatty needs some sort of evasion, so I guess the question is whether they could still cram Menace in there... Probably yes, as Mirrorpool has 8 lines of text.

Speaking of which Mirrorpool would've have worked as is if you needed to tack on "Spend at least one colorless mana to activate this ability," so that card is dead, but considering they're not going to use C again for lord knows how long, did that card have to exist?

And I don't care what they say, releasing lands that tap for :1: in the same freaking block was insanity. They printed a cycle of cards knowing they would need errata. What about the as-fan and NWO and managing complexity?

That's another big irritation I have, by the way: they talk about how such and such a strategy can't happen because of the standards for bla bla, and then they run out something like Ingest and the processing mechanic which I can't imagine trying to explain to a new player. Just puts so much focus on the exile zone and is so wordy.

[Quasim0ff]

I actually remember thinking something seemed off when I opened a Sol Ring in a Commander deck (the first thing I bought when I came back to the game after ~10 years) and saw "Add :2: to your mana pool." Seeing this change has sort of elucidated it for me.

That being said, if they're not planning to have it matter that much, I don't think the change needed to be made and is now just needlessly confusing and ugly. I got used to :1: representing colorless and generic. Now you've got people asking if you need CCC to pay for Mana Leak. Which I don't think is that stupid of a question. I think it's more intuitive to see the :1: symbol as meaning "mana of any type" in costs, and "colorless mana" in effects . Now you've got some :1:s and friends being errata'd to C, but others are not being errata'd, and the intuitive part is gone.

To template this without the change, you do use a lot of space. Could it have worked?

You must use at least two colorless mana
to cast Kozilek, The Great Distortion.

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

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

This is pretty much what's there now minus Menace and the flavor text (but the same amount of total text lines). Clearly this fatty needs some sort of evasion, so I guess the question is whether they could still cram Menace in there... Probably yes, as Mirrorpool has 8 lines of text.

Speaking of which Mirrorpool would've have worked as is if you needed to tack on "Spend at least one colorless mana to activate this ability," so that card is dead, but considering they're not going to use C again for lord knows how long, did that card have to exist?

And I don't care what they say, releasing lands that tap for :1: in the same freaking block was insanity. They printed a cycle of cards knowing they would need errata. What about the as-fan and NWO and managing complexity?

That's another big irritation I have, by the way: they talk about how such and such a strategy can't happen because of the standards for bla bla, and then they run out something like Ingest and the processing mechanic which I can't imagine trying to explain to a new player. Just puts so much focus on the exile zone and is so wordy.

The problem is that, until now, colourless mana have meant generic mana. This is why, they added the <> mana symbol - To illustrate sometimes colourless is actually without a colour. We haven't had any way to differentiate between those before types before, regarding payment of spells before.

[Cire]

The problem is that, until now, colourless mana have meant generic mana. This is why, they added the <> mana symbol - To illustrate sometimes colourless is actually without a colour. We haven't had any way to differentiate between those before types before, regarding payment of spells before.

Which again - would have been an AMAZING change to the game. . . but apparently this distinction is only important for one set and one set only.

[Quasim0ff]

Which again - would have been an AMAZING change to the game. . . but apparently this distinction is only important for one set and one set only.

I agree completly. It would open for some amazing design space.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

The problem is that, until now, colourless mana have meant generic mana. This is why, they added the <> mana symbol - To illustrate sometimes colourless is actually without a colour. We haven't had any way to differentiate between those before types before, regarding payment of spells before.

I was excited about this clarification/change/ distinction/etc.

I thought it would open amount a tremendous amount of design space, and used properly it absolutely would.

To learn the only cards taking advantage of this mechanic will be essentially a handful of themed cards limited to only this set, and the only evergreen anything about this distinction is the symbol itself is absolutely laughable. I mean, why friggin' bother? It's absurd. If that does turn out to be the case, the only thing this new colorless symbol will truly represent is squandered potential.

[TsumiBand]

Apparently, we're supposed to stop talking about this now. (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/why-leaks-hurt-2015-12-16)


Would you go on your friend's Facebook page and announce a pregnancy if you found a positive pregnancy test in their bathroom? No, that would make you a terrible human being! Because it's not your news to give, and when the world gets to know it is up to that person and their significant other.

I think that fundamentally I agree with the idea, but this is a poor delivery on the subject. Between this, Rosewater's "sorry if this set is a mess" message from earlier, and that whole "stop recording data on the metagame, you're solving it too quickly and everything's stale now" thing they did like 2 months ago, I'm a little... concerned?... as to the collective headspace over there.

[iamajellydonut]

Apparently, we're supposed to stop talking about this now. (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/why-leaks-hurt-2015-12-16)

tl;dr: they try to justify teasers as anything other than a self-serving marketing ploy.

[DLifshitz]

Apparently, we're supposed to stop talking about this now. (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/why-leaks-hurt-2015-12-16)

Major game companies do generally impose review embargoes, which cover early spoilers and leaks. It's just the way it is. Hey, at least WotC isn't paying people to write totally impartial reviews of every new set (the online stores do that).

[Shawon]

Would you go on your friend's Facebook page and announce a pregnancy if you found a positive pregnancy test in their bathroom? No, that would make you a terrible human being! Because it's not your news to give, and when the world gets to know it is up to that person and their significant other.

Really now?

[Cire]

Major game companies do generally impose review embargoes, which cover early spoilers and leaks. It's just the way it is. Hey, at least WotC isn't paying people to write totally impartial reviews of every new set (the online stores do that).

I do like the old days when leaks where treated more like a rag team band of rebels stealing the Death Star plans from the empire. . .

[apple713]

we're supposed to stop talking about this now. (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/why-leaks-hurt-2015-12-16)



It sounds like someone got booty hurt because they spent along time typing an article that was more or less outdated when it was suppose to be released.

If WOTC really wanted to prevent leaks, I feel like it shouldn't be that hard. Wizards could easily delay shipping their product, or push up their reveals and articles. I highly doubt people are breaking into their factories to steal cards...

[tescrin]

If WOTC really wanted to prevent leaks, I feel like it shouldn't be that hard. Wizards could easily delay shipping their product, or push up their reveals and articles. I highly doubt people are breaking into their factories to steal cards...

Exactly. GW was pretty successful with clamping down in 40k and Warhammer, WotC could do the same.