[OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Yeah! Finally get to make one of these!

Even though the cards spoiled may be fake...

First up, we have a big friend for Newlamog:

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


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

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

Menace

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

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

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


Wastes
Basic Land

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

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

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


Mirrorpool
Land

Mirrorpool enters the battlefield tapped

Tap: Add <> to your mana pool

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

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

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

[HdH_Cthulhu]

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

Either weird wording or fake.

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

Normal wording would be:

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

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

[phonics]

Diamond lands = snow lands 2: electric boogaloo?

[Barook]

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

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

[into_play]

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

Either weird wording or fake.

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

Normal wording would be:

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

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

Knollspine Invocation has a similar wording.

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

All interesting if real though.

[Barook]

Knollspine Invocation has a similar wording.

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

All interesting if real though.
I like this explanation:


:1: in cost: generic mana. Can be paid with any color
Until Onslaught: "Add one colorless mana to your mana pool". Can be used to pay generic costs.
After Onslaught: "Add :1: to your mana pool". :1: in mana producers is colorless mana that can be used to pay generic mana costs.
After Oath:
:1: in cost: generic mana. Can be paid with any color or colorless
{d} in cost: colorless mana. Can only be paid with colorless mana.
{d} in producers: colorless mana. Can pay generic and colorless costs.
(:1: in producers: No longer exists, errata to {d})

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

[jrsthethird]

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

[Dice_Box]

Knollspine Invocation has a similar wording.

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

All interesting if real though.
If your going to have a new symbol, might as well use it.

[Gheizen64]

I don't see how this is parasitic. It's just a new way to indicate (must be paid with colorless) in mana costs and a new way to say :1: on producers. It's non parasitic at all, if anything, this work amazingly with a lot of old cards that produce colorless mana because colorless is now a bit better since it can pay for some specific costs.

[Dice_Box]

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

[death]

This effectively re-introduce colorless as sixth color.

[H]

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

[rufus]

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

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

[Whitefaces]

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

Sure, but Emrakul can't be reanimated.

[Echelon]

Sure, but Emrakul can't be reanimated.

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

[maharis]

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

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

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

[Ace/Homebrew]

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

http://media-dominaria.cursecdn.com/attachments/147/537/635833907600393736.jpg
from Skitterskin

http://media-dominaria.cursecdn.com/attachments/147/536/635833907427971248.jpg
from Kozilek's Sentinel

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

[GundamGuy]

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

Since the lands seem to point to tapping for <> mana I'm inclined to think that <> is not just simply the same thing as <> must be :1: mana.

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

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

[Cire]

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

[Barook]

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

http://www.bismuthcrystal.com/n23-566d.jpg

Edit:

I like the interpretation that <> means "must be paid in colorless mana" - however, the problem with that interpretation is why would the land produce <>, wouldn't producing (1) be just as good?
Maybe all instances of :1: producers gets errated to <>. Ancient Tomb would produce <><> in that case.

[wcm8]

I see that Wastes doesn't have a land type despite being Basic. This means that it can't be fetched with most fetch lands (since they search for e.g. a Swamp or Island), and nor do Wastes interact with stuff like Domain.

My guess as to their functionality: in addition to tapping for colorless mana, they also provide mana that can function as the colored mana required on colorless spells. So for example, a spell with Devoid that costs 2R could be cast by tapping a Wastes (for the R) and an Ancient Tomb (for the remaining 2 colorless mana).

This would be a method of making an Eldrazideck much more playable in Standard.

[Cire]

Maybe all instances of :1: producers gets errated to <>. Ancient Tomb would produce <><> in that case.

That seems ridiculously unnecessary - especially since they made colorless lands in this very block :tongue:

---

Edit: I like the poster above's comment. . . . maybe <> is "may only be paid by colorless sources AND if produced counts as any color for the purposed of casting colorless spells" BUT that seems super complicated. :confused:

[GundamGuy]

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

Edit:

Maybe all instances of :1: producers gets errated to <>. Ancient Tomb would produce <><> in that case.

That seems kind of silly to me. So what about about non-land effects that produce colorless mana would they be errated as well?

Point is, if all <> means is that it must be paid with colorless mana, there is no reason to have lands specifically produce <>.

I actually think it makes more sense to go the other way, that <> can be used as :1:, but that :1: can't be used as <>.

So it would work much like Snow.

[guillemnicolau]

I like the interpretation that <> means "must be paid in colorless mana" - however, the problem with that interpretation is why would the land produce <>, wouldn't producing (1) be just as good?
Yes, if all this waste mana is true, all sources of generic mana will now have an errata, and give the new colorless mana instead.

[GundamGuy]

Yes, if all this waste mana is true, all sources of generic mana will now have an errata, and give the new colorless mana instead.

Unless it actually works like Snow mana...

[Barook]

I actually think it makes more sense to go the other way, that <> can be used as :1:, but that :1: can't be used as <>.

So it would work much like Snow.
That would probably the most parasitic mechanic ever, even worse than Snow.

I don't think they can fuck up that bad, despite BFZ already being terrible.

[guillemnicolau]

My guess as to their functionality: in addition to tapping for colorless mana, they also provide mana that can function as the colored mana required on colorless spells. So for example, a spell with Devoid that costs 2R could be cast by tapping a Wastes (for the R) and an Ancient Tomb (for the remaining 2 colorless mana).

I don't think it will be like this. Colorless mana can't pay color costs, but it must be payed without color mana (they are the opposite, while generic mana can be payed with both).

[GundamGuy]

That would probably the most parasitic mechanic ever, even worse than Snow.

I don't think they can fuck up that bad, despite BFZ already being terrible.

How is it worse then snow? It's just colorless snow.

[Cire]

Man I can't wait for this card:

(2/B)(P/B)(<>)(S)
Artifact Snow Creature - Eldrazi Horror (R)
Devoid, Infect
This card is not a "card," and you are not a "player."
6/6

[guillemnicolau]

How is it worse then snow? It's just colorless snow.

it's worse because snow mana can have color and be used to pay non-snow costs. Colorless mana can only pay generic costs and colorless costs

[Ace/Homebrew]

My guess as to their functionality: in addition to tapping for colorless mana, they also provide mana that can function as the colored mana required on colorless spells. So for example, a spell with Devoid that costs 2R could be cast by tapping a Wastes (for the R) and an Ancient Tomb (for the remaining 2 colorless mana).
Isn't that overly complicated and unintuitive?
Obviously all this is speculation so nobody is right or wrong yet...

I suspect <> in a mana cost means "must be paid in colorless mana" similar to how the snowflake symbol means "must be paid using snow-mana".
<> on the card Wastes is just a colorless mana, the significance of the card being that it will be classified as the 6th basic land type.

This will play well with Converge and Domain and cards like Draco.
It also gives colorless EDH pilots basic lands so they do not get blown out by Wave of Vitriol.

Wastes won't be relevant in Standard because of the pain lands.
It was made mostly to fix limited where all of the lands that tap for colorless are at Uncommon or Rare.

[Cire]

Ace - the waste was a basic land - but it didn't have a basic land type - so I think it does nothing for domain type cards.

[GundamGuy]

it's worse because snow mana can have color and be used to pay non-snow costs. Colorless mana can only pay generic costs and colorless costs

<> can be used to pay non-<> cards too.

It's not any worse then snow. Now admitedly Snow is terrible.

[guillemnicolau]

<> can be used to pay non-<> cards too.

It's not any worse then snow. Now admitedly Snow is terrible.

You can't cast an ancestral recall with waste mana, but you can with a snow-covered island.

[GundamGuy]

You can't cast an ancestral recall with waste mana, but you can with a snow-covered island.

Well yeah, you can't cast Ancestral recall with colorless mana.

I'm not suggesting that colorless snow would be better then color snow, but I am saying mechanically they would work the same way.



I suspect <> in a mana cost means "must be paid in colorless mana" similar to how the snowflake symbol means "must be paid using snow-mana".
<> on the card Wastes is just a colorless mana.


I agree with "must be paid with <> mana" I however don't think <> is actually just the same thing as :1:

[Ace/Homebrew]

Ace - the waste was a basic land - but it didn't have a basic land type - so I think it does nothing for domain type cards.
Good point.

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

This artwork pretty clearly shows a Mountain that was corrupted. I'm guessing we'll get 5 artworks for Wastes, each showing a different corrupted basic land type.

[GundamGuy]

This artwork pretty clearly shows a Mountain that was corrupted. I'm guessing we'll get 5 artworks for Wastes, each showing a different corrupted basic land type.

Seems likely. I wonder if they are all going to have the Bismuth look to them, or if the Wastes look wasted but different depending on the land type that was wasted...

Also seems like a great time to re-print Wasteland (:tongue:)

[rufus]

...

This artwork pretty clearly shows a Mountain that was corrupted. I'm guessing we'll get 5 artworks for Wastes, each showing a different corrupted basic land type.

And then a cycle of waste-duals that can also produce mana of a particular color ...

[Whitefaces]

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

I'm well aware of onions, good sir, it's one of my sleeved decks currently :cool: My LGS don't get enough onions or spaghetti in their diet.

But you wouldn't want to be Shallow Graving/Vengeancing this guy, he wants to stay in play and counter everything they play.

[.dk]

I'm well aware of onions, good sir, it's one of my sleeved decks currently :cool: My LGS don't get enough onions or spaghetti in their diet.

But you wouldn't want to be Shallow Graving/Vengeancing this guy, he wants to stay in play and counter everything they play.

I approve of your discussion regarding our favorite folic acid and magnesium producing vegetable. Carry on!

[TsumiBand]

If <> is indeed colorless mana (and not some weird Eldrazi-only 'non color mana' thing) then it does matter that a spell says 6<><>, because you COULD pay 2RRRRRR to cast new Kozilek, but you could NOT pay 1RRRRRRR. This puts an explicit requirement to produce colorless instead of :1: which could be any color.

[raudo]

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

[Cire]

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

[TsumiBand]

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

...I don't know that there's a whole lot of cards that this could apply to? Like there are cards like Soul Burn or whatever that have text requiring specific colors, this is just the inverse of that. It isn't exactly a huge overhaul to the game; generic mana costs aren't changing, most cards that have a generic cost aren't going to be subject to this at all.

[iamajellydonut]

This artwork pretty clearly shows a Mountain that was corrupted.

I think your biased.

Clearly depicts a Swamp.

[Cire]

...I don't know that there's a whole lot of cards that this could apply to? Like there are cards like Soul Burn or whatever that have text requiring specific colors, this is just the inverse of that. It isn't exactly a huge overhaul to the game; generic mana costs aren't changing, most cards that have a generic cost aren't going to be subject to this at all.

I meant cards like Ancient Tomb - generic mana producers. Do they provide (2) or (<>)(<>) now. Because if they don't provide (<>) then in order to play any cards with (<>) in their mana cost you need to play the very specific cards that will be coming out in the next set - which is very parasitic, and the exact same criticism that people had against snow lands and Ice Age.

[Fox]

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

[Ace/Homebrew]

I think your biased.

Clearly depicts a Swamp.
It's pretty clearly
http://mtvbase-com.mtvnimages.com/images/Shows/yo-mama-S3_281x211.jpg
You just got Valderamma'd! :cool:

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

[TsumiBand]

I meant cards like Ancient Tomb - generic mana producers. Do they provide (2) or (<>)(<>) now. Because if they don't provide (<>) then in order to play any cards with (<>) in their mana cost you need to play the very specific cards that will be coming out in the next set - which is very parasitic, and the exact same criticism that people had against snow lands and Ice Age.

Well I know we're in speculative territory right now, but respectfully I do not think <> is produced, so much as it is simply a way of saying "only colorless mana need apply". I find it hard to believe that they would add what's functionally a sixth color - even if it is a variant of colorless mana - after 25 years. Like, that's even more of an upheaval than all the new card types and supertypes they've messed with previously, as it has implications with aspects of the game that weren't even designed with extra land types in mind (Domain effects come to mind but I'm sure a comprehensive list has been accrued by some pedant over the years).

That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana. I mean the alternative is to just have a :1: on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.

[btm10]

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

Seconded.

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

Edit:


That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana. I mean the alternative is to just have a :1: on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.

I hope this is the real reason if this is real.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Seconded.
I looked it up:

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

[Gheizen64]

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

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

Did i get trolled?:frown:

[Ace/Homebrew]

Did i get trolled?:frown:
http://mtvbase-com.mtvnimages.com/images/Shows/yo-mama-S3_281x211.jpg
You just got Valderamma'd! :cool:




Nah, I was legit asking.

[rufus]

...
That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana. I mean the alternative is to just have a :1: on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.

Lots of cards already use that symbol for generic mana costs. It would break the land mana symbol - card mana symbol symmetry too.

[H]

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

Supposing this is real, it could be that the last two sets were made to explore <> but now we will only be getting a condensed one.

[tescrin]

Ingest is also parasitic because it does mostly nothing with like all but a dozen cards in all of magic, which are all in BFZ. :

No it's not; Ingest is all upside that moves you directly towards an alternate win condition (milling out.)

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

A good test for parasitism is if you can play the card in commander without catering to it. Thief of Hope, for example, is total garbage without changling, spirit, and/or arcane spells in high volume. Goblin Warchief is garbage without a bunch of Goblins. but, Goblin Rabblemaster is fine by himself. As is Bloodghast.

[TsumiBand]

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

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

Consider Dark Ritual vs. Thran Dynamo. Ritual says "Add :b::b::b: to your mana pool" while Dynamo says "Add :3: to your mana pool". Looking at most cards which add multiple mana to your pool at once, the real goofball here is Dynamo - because remember, this isn't talking about what a card costs to play, this is talking about actually adding some kind of mana to your pool. Every other mana color in the game, even when its a stupidly high number of mana, has to add a symbol for each mana it's adding - Geosurge has :r::r::r::r::r::r::r: on it. That's seven Rs, in case it isn't immediately obvious.

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

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

[phonics]

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

[MGB]

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

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

Consider Dark Ritual vs. Thran Dynamo. Ritual says "Add :b::b::b: to your mana pool" while Dynamo says "Add :3: to your mana pool". Looking at most cards which add multiple mana to your pool at once, the real goofball here is Dynamo - because remember, this isn't talking about what a card costs to play, this is talking about actually adding some kind of mana to your pool. Every other mana color in the game, even when its a stupidly high number of mana, has to add a symbol for each mana it's adding - Geosurge has :r::r::r::r::r::r::r: on it. That's seven Rs, in case it isn't immediately obvious.

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

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


You win the thread!

[Cire]

That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana.

That's the worry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

[Lemnear]

I'm pretty sure this is simply the next abdominal coming of Snow Mana to prevent the Eldrazi from being castable in decks like Tron or 12-Post

[Barook]

For those who still had doubts: The thread on Salvation says they have past spoiler sources confirm the 3 cards as real.

Two things I find weird about the whole thing:
1) the lack of reminder text for said mana
2) If they replace :1: with <>, why wouldn't they do it already in the first set, even with the whole block condensing?

[death]

That's the worry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

It taps colorless because it is mana-producing. Colorless is more specific than generic. This way a line is drawn between generic and colorless requirements of spells and abilities.

[apple713]

it seems really silly to introduce another basic land type. The limited number of cards available to it would have to be AMAZING to splash this "color"

[Cire]

It taps colorless because it is mana-producing. Colorless is more specific than generic. This way a line is drawn between generic and colorless requirements of spells and abilities.

I mean I totally get the difference between colorless and generic as a cost, but how it is different when you produce it? Both can pay for <> or (1) after all (presumably).

Edit - also there is no new basic land type. They are basic lands without a type so domain is not effected.

[GundamGuy]

I'm pretty sure this is simply the next abdominal coming of Snow Mana to prevent the Eldrazi from being castable in decks like Tron or 12-Post

Seems far more likely then Wizards deciding to errata all colorless mana sources to produce <> mana.

After Oath of the Gate Watch I think we'll have 5 colors of mana, colorless (or generic mana), snow mana in each color, hybrid mana, phyrexian mana, and eldrazi mana.

[jrsthethird]

I'm assuming that <> is a new way to write :1:. There is the argument that it serves as a sixth color, but with how often that idea was tossed around and shut down, I doubt they would go there.

On a complete tangent, having a symbol for colorless-specific mana means we can now see a colorless Phyrexian mana in the future.


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

This is pretty much what I thought:


That said, there's a land with the <> insignia on it, but hopefully that's just symbolic of colorless mana and not a whole other subset of colorless mana. I mean the alternative is to just have a :1: on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.

A full-art land with :1: on it is ugly as shit. Ugliest thing on a card since the sideways T tap symbol.


Seems likely. I wonder if they are all going to have the Bismuth look to them, or if the Wastes look wasted but different depending on the land type that was wasted...

Also seems like a great time to re-print Wasteland (:tongue:)

On the Wastes lands, having one for each color would help to balance Limited play and demand. For one, it would get really lame to see 5 different arts for all the traditional basics, so one of each corresponding art is great flavor-wise, as well as good for players who want choices. Also, if you look at the rarity on the very bottom, they are Common, not Basic Land rarity. This means they should show up in 1 of 10 Common slots, vs. approx 1/6 of the time in the Basic Land slot.

Fate Reforged, the most recent small set, had 185 cards, with 76 commons. OGW has 184, so let's assume (for math's sake) 75 of them are common. If only one of them is a Wastes, then only 1.33% of the commons are Wastes, and with 10 chances to pull from a pack, there's only a 13.3% chance to pull a Wastes, or about 1 out of every 8 packs. Increase this to 5 different Wastes as common, and they make up 6.67% of the common pool, or a 2/3 chance to pull one per pack. Obviously this percentage ignores the idea of pulling 2 or more different Wastes per pack, but I think they would mitigate that percentage by only having one Wastes possible per pack. Having it at common puts it at a much greater chance to pull a Wastes than simply including it on the basic land sheet, where there would be 1/6 chance to pull one.

It's also possible that these either completely replace the traditional basic land per pack, but then why don't they have the Land rarity?

As far as the Wasteland goes, this would be the best fucking time ever for a Standard reprint, for not only flavor (FUCK YOU KHANS MANABASES), but it wouldn't come without an insta-ban in Modern. So, while arguably necessary, this reprint isn't happening until we see a Legacy Masters.


For those who still had doubts: The thread on Salvation says they have past spoiler sources confirm the 3 cards as real.

Two things I find weird about the whole thing:
1) the lack of reminder text for said mana
2) If they replace :1: with <>, why wouldn't they do it already in the first set, even with the whole block condensing?

1. Rules cards/media information should make that clear. The most confusing thing is when someone doesn't think they can pay for Kozilek with all basics and pain lands.
2. Surprise/novelty factor. Or they honestly didn't come to a simplified solution until BFZ was in print.


it seems really silly to introduce another basic land type. The limited number of cards available to it would have to be AMAZING to splash this "color"

The lands have no type. They are useless for domain and converge.

It's actually a really awesome card and solution to the colorless EDH problem.

The first thing that came to mind: Imagine if they had this when Top was printed:

Top <>
<>: Look at the top 3 cards and rearrange them.
T: Draw a card and replace.

This is a card that is powerful but challenges deck construction enough to mitigate that.

[GundamGuy]

A full-art land with :1: on it is ugly as shit. Ugliest thing on a card since the sideways T tap symbol.




True, but consider that the idea of making a full art or "Basic Land" that taps for :1: instead of colored mana in the first place is pretty unheard of...

So lets start with that, why would you even do that?

[jrsthethird]

Actually, they considered it several times. It's the "Barry's Land" problem. I think they game to a conclusion here to do it without the basic land type, which doesn't fuck with Domain or any other mechanic that requires a specific basic land type.


abdominal coming

My favorite place to come...

[jrsthethird]

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25

Just look how FUCKING UGLY this mockup is:

http://archive.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/mm/mm25_cave.jpg

Anyway, from this article, besides the obvious Domain interaction, there are a lot of other issues with giving it a type:


If Cave were printed, for example, the following would all happen:

Coalition Victory would require six basic land types in play for the win.
Anytime a card listed the basic land types from then on, it would have to include Cave.
Dream Thrush could now make a land produce colorless mana.

[TsumiBand]

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25

Just look how FUCKING UGLY this mockup is:

http://archive.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/mm/mm25_cave.jpg



loooooooooool that's worse than I thought it'd be. Good form!

[Barook]

The first thing that came to mind: Imagine if they had this when Top was printed:

Top <>
<>: Look at the top 3 cards and rearrange them.
T: Draw a card and replace.

This is a card that is powerful but challenges deck construction enough to mitigate that.
Now they only need to print this and a bunch of colorless shuffle effects:

Bismutstorm <>
Instant
Draw three cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order.

[GundamGuy]

Actually, they considered it several times. It's the "Barry's Land" problem. I think they game to a conclusion here to do it without the basic land type, which doesn't fuck with Domain or any other mechanic that requires a specific basic land type.



My favorite place to come...

I totally agree that typeless basic lands was done for those reasons. That of this means they are going to have to revise rule 305.6.


305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words "basic land type," it's referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability "{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool," even if the text box doesn't actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule 107.4a. Also see rule 605, "Mana Abilities."

Since there is now a Basic Land with Null type, and I guess that for Basic Lands with no type has the intrinsic ability "{T}: Add <> to your mana pool"?

[jrsthethird]

Pretty much.


So lets start with that, why would you even do that?

Besides the flavor and interactions with Eldrazi (isn't it a little weird that these creatures that are devoid of color can be cast with all colored mana?), it solves a huge problem with EDH. This might be a niche market for them, but there are definitely Karn players out there who are absolutely fucking thrilled they don't have to run things like Ally Encampment or Panoramas due to color identity restrictions.

[Octopusman]

Learning curve is a thing, but it's clear that the new mana symbol is confusing and will be confusing during limited and for new players. I think it's a case of bad design when people who have been playing for decades don't think it's intuitive.

"Only to be paid for with colorless or other mana matching this symbol" is not intuitive. However, it is the most likely.
It's basically forcing you to have some way of producing colorless if you want to use those cards either by lands or things like Scions which flavorwise makes total sense.

Colored mana pays for colored and generic.
Colorless pays for generic or <>.
<> pays for <>.

God help us.

[Cire]

Are you guys really saying that the only reason that <> can be produced (instead of just being a cost) is that 1 would look too ugly :eek:, that would be hilarious. :tongue:

[GundamGuy]

Are you guys really saying that the only reason that <> can be produced (instead of just being a cost) is that 1 would look too ugly :eek:, that would be hilarious. :tongue:

Of course that can't be the only reason because <> on a spell would then mean something different then <> on a land.

On a land it would mean add one colorless mana to your mana pool.

On a spell it would mean only colorless mana can be used to pay this cost.


Pretty much.



Besides the flavor and interactions with Eldrazi (isn't it a little weird that these creatures that are devoid of color can be cast with all colored mana?), it solves a huge problem with EDH. This might be a niche market for them, but there are definitely Karn players out there who are absolutely fucking thrilled they don't have to run things like Ally Encampment or Panoramas due to color identity restrictions.

I agree with you that it's due to the flavor, and think it's good flavor. I don't see how this changes anythign in commander about color idenity. Colorless isn't a color still.

[Cire]

Of course that can't be the only reason because <> on a spell would then mean something different then <> on a land.

On a land it would mean add one colorless mana to your mana pool.

On a spell it would mean only colorless mana can be used to pay this cost.

Again, I totally get that <> as a cost makes sense, but producing <> makes no sense at all since producing <> is no different than producing (1).

Edit:

Here is my bet. . . . <> as a cost means generic or colorless can pay it. But <> produced can ONLY pay for colorless sort of like shrine of the foresaken gods, because without some difference producing <> and (1) is exactly the same.

[jrsthethird]

Are you guys really saying that the only reason that <> can be produced (instead of just being a cost) is that 1 would look too ugly :eek:, that would be hilarious. :tongue:

Occam's Razor?


Again, I totally get that <> as a cost makes sense, but producing <> makes no sense at all since producing <> is no different than producing (1).

But how do you represent "two of this mana must be colorless" in a mana cost?

[Octopusman]

Since there is now a Basic Land with Null type, and I guess that for Basic Lands with no type has the intrinsic ability "{T}: Add <> to your mana pool"?

This is a very good question. Best question posed in this thread so far, I think.

Please give us a new moon that removes subtypes from non-basic lands.

[Octopusman]

Again, I totally get that <> as a cost makes sense, but producing <> makes no sense at all since producing <> is no different than producing (1).

Since that doesn't make sense, it makes sense that <> only pays for <> while 1 pays for 1 or <>.

[jrsthethird]

Please give us a new moon that removes subtypes from non-basic lands.

This makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering Prairie Stream just happened a month ago.

[Cire]

But how do you represent "two of this mana must be colorless" in a mana cost?

Again. . . . I totally get <> as a cost. But producing <> makes no sense unless <> is treated differently than producing generic mana.

[GundamGuy]

Again, I totally get that <> as a cost makes sense, but producing <> makes no sense at all since producing <> is no different than producing (1).

I agree 100% as a cost modification it makes sense, on a land it doesn't, unless it's a new varriant of snow. I think I've made my position on this clear so I'll stop harping on it.

Basic Lands with no type is a pretty big change to how the rules currenly work.

Are we going to get creatures with no creature types next?

[Octopusman]

This makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering Prairie Stream just happened a month ago.

I don't get what you mean. Prairie Stream would tap for <>, it would be super OP, and wasn't meant to be taken too seriously since I don't think Wizards is nearly sadistic enough to print such a non-basic hoser. I would love to play with it, though.

[Cire]

Since that doesn't make sense, it makes sense that <> only pays for <> while 1 pays for 1 or <>.

If that's the case then Wastes are SUPER PARASITIC, in that they are only useful and playable within this one set (not even a block)!

[Octopusman]

If that's the case then Wastes are SUPER PARASITIC, in that they are only useful and playable within this one set (not even a block)!

Correct.

[GundamGuy]

If that's the case then Wastes are SUPER PARASITIC, in that they are only useful and playable within this one set (not even a block)!

Would that totally shock you?

Hope for the best, fear the worst....

The worst in this case being a new varriant of snow in which <> is a more exclusive version of :1: much like Snow Islands can pay for both U and Snow, <> can pay for both <> or :1:

I promise I'm done. :tongue:

[Cire]

Correct.

I guess my argument is that wizards wouldn't make a whole new basic land for such a parasitic mechanic. However, my best guess to solve the whole <> as produced mana, is that: <> as a cost means generic or colorless can pay it, but <> produced can ONLY pay for colorless sort of like shrine of the foresaken gods, because without some difference producing <> and (1) is exactly the same. Thus wastes would be able to be used for artifact and eldrazi decks. Again this is just a guess, but I don't think it would be parasitic, and I think their needs to be some distinction between producing <> and (1)

[rufus]

If that's the case then Wastes are SUPER PARASITIC, in that they are only useful and playable within this one set (not even a block)!

Part of the issue - I think - is the desire to have basic lands for colorless commander decks.

[Cire]

Part of the issue - I think - is the desire to have basic lands for colorless commander decks.

Which is fine, which is why I don't think it will be parasitic to the extent proposed by Octopusman. However, as I stated, I personally believe there must be a distinction between producing <> or (1). My proposed distinction is that <> may only be used to pay for colorless spells and abilities (so in my proposal, you won't be able to use <> for a card that costs 4G and that doesn't have devoid). This would force wastes to only be used for eldrazi decks or artifact decks in EDH.

[Dice_Box]

And then a cycle of waste-duals that can also produce mana of a particular color ...

There are 20 more Expedition's in Oath. I was wondering what they would be. This seems like a likely answer.

[H]

I agree 100% as a cost modification it makes sense, on a land it doesn't, unless it's a new varriant of snow. I think I've made my position on this clear so I'll stop harping on it.

Basic Lands with no type is a pretty big change to how the rules currenly work.

Well, <> can be :1: while :1: is not <>, that's not really too complex. Maybe it's just me.

This shit is parasitic, but who cares, because 90% of new cards are parasitic in the sense that they suck and you barely even want to play them in Standard.


Are we going to get creatures with no creature types next?

That already happened a long, long time ago. (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=1739)

[rufus]

... may only be used to pay for colorless spells and abilities (so in my proposal, you won't be able to use <> for a card that costs 4G and that doesn't have devoid). This would force wastes to only be used for eldrazi decks or artifact decks in EDH.

Abilities, to date, generally don't have a color characteristic. Distinguishing between "abilities" and "special actions" (like morph) on the mana side isn't going to be easy for people to understand either, and runs contrary to the "cards work the way you think they should" stuff WotC's been doing lately.

[Cire]

Abilities, to date, generally don't have a color characteristic. Distinguishing between "abilities" and "special actions" (like morph) on the mana side isn't going to be easy for people to understand either, and runs contrary to the "cards work the way you think they should" stuff WotC's been doing lately.

Then maybe my theory only applies to mana costs then, or producing <> is exactly the same as producing 1 and it was made so for only aesthetic reasons, or its just a super parasitic mechanic, I give up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[jrsthethird]

Again. . . . I totally get <> as a cost. But producing <> makes no sense unless <> is treated differently than producing generic mana.

I think <> = :1:. Just a simple label applied to an old mechanic. Nothing different than making Menace = This creature cannot be blocked except by two or more creatures.


Basic Lands with no type is a pretty big change to how the rules currenly work.

I went over this already in the Barry's Land article. A Basic land with a type is a ridiculously huge change to how the rules work. A Basic land with no type is an easy workaround.


I don't get what you mean. Prairie Stream would tap for <>, it would be super OP, and wasn't meant to be taken too seriously since I don't think Wizards is nearly sadistic enough to print such a non-basic hoser. I would love to play with it, though.

I read your post and thought of something completely different. My bad.


Which is fine, which is why I don't think it will be parasitic to the extent proposed by Octopusman. However, as I stated, I personally believe there must be a distinction between producing <> or (1). My proposed distinction is that <> may only be used to pay for colorless spells and abilities (so in my proposal, you won't be able to use <> for a card that costs 4G and that doesn't have devoid). This would force wastes to only be used for eldrazi decks or artifact decks in EDH.

That's a lot of rules baggage for a card that's already "strictly inferior" to Plains. Unless I'm playing a format where the rules dictate what lands I can run (EDH), then by no means will I ever run Wastes unless there is a draw for me to do so. If it is because the mechanic is so parasitic that <> in a cost can only be paid by <>, effectively creating a sixth color only in OGW, then fine. Or, it could just be that Wastes is another card in the line of Darksteel Citadel, Radiant Fountain, or Reliquary Tower: a land that taps for :1: with no color benefit, but a fringe benefit that makes giving up a color worth it. In this case, it's being Basic.


There are 20 more Expedition's in Oath. I was wondering what they would be. This seems like a likely answer.

Doubtful. Since Wastes doesn't have a land type, this would be very odd.

[GundamGuy]

I think <> = :1:. Just a simple label applied to an old mechanic. Nothing different than making Menace = This creature cannot be blocked except by two or more creatures.



If that is the case, then <> on a Land means something different then <> in the Casting Cost of a Spell or avactivation cost of an ability. That might be right, but that seems questionable.




I went over this already in the Barry's Land article. A Basic land with a type is a ridiculously huge change to how the rules work. A Basic land with no type is an easy workaround.



This is my bad, i said type when I meant subtype. A Basic Land without a subtype is a pretty big change to how the rules of Lands work. You say this is an easy work around, but it's actually a bit tricker then that, becuase it'll require reworking how the Land Types Work (Rule 305.6) and how land subtypes work in general.

Land - (no subtype): Has no inherent mana abilities
Land - Locus: Has no inherent mana abilities
Land - Island Forest: would produce U or G due to inherent subtype abilities
Basic Land - (No subtype): Would produce <>
Basic Land - Island: would produce U

So a land with no subtype doesn't inherently tap for <>, but a Basic Land with no Subtype does... even though a land with subtype Island taps for U regardless of if it's basic or not. :eyebrow:

IMO the idea that we are going to define the lack of a subtype as a specific rules case that only applies to lands with the supertype basic is pretty weird.

Consider this weird (and maybe not yet or maybe even ever possible rules senario)

You have a Land - Island Mountain in play, you play a card that gives it type Swamp in addition to it's other types. It now taps for U or B or R.
You have a Basic Land - Island in play, you play a card that gives it type Swamp in addition to it's other types. It now taps for U or B.
You have a Land - Island Mountain in play, you play a card that removes all of it's subtypes (don't think this currently exists) this land produces no mana (assuming no other abilities)
You have a Basic Land - Island in play, you play a card that removes all of it's subtypes this land taps for <>.

[Lemnear]

My bet:

<> pays for <> or 1
1 generic mana does not pay for <>

Snow mana all over

[square_two]

There are 20 more Expedition's in Oath. I was wondering what they would be. This seems like a likely answer.

So we would have 5 special foily lands that could tap for either <> OR their color. That seems...really lame.

[rufus]

If that is the case, then <> on a Land means something different then <> in the Casting Cost of a Spell or avactivation cost of an ability. That might be right, but that seems questionable.

It's worth noting that :1: on the effect side already means something different than :1: on the cost side.



This is my bad, i said type when I meant subtype. A Basic Land without a subtype is a pretty big change to how the rules of Lands work. You say this is an easy work around, but it's actually a bit tricker then that, becuase it'll require reworking how the Land Types Work (Rule 305.6) and how land subtypes work in general.


Although it's a bit ugly, you could have a basic land with a land type that's not a "basic land type," and attach rules similar to 305.6 to that land type.

[TsumiBand]

I know it isn't even confirmed yet, but if it is such that <> = :1: then there is literally nothing to "not get". It is entirely the same and the only confusion to be had is that which you perceive to be there.

A spell's mana cost doesn't have "X colorless" in it. The Comp Rules clearly label it as generic mana (http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Mana#Mana_cost_and_color), and rightly so because it does NOT have a stringent requirement as to the way in which it's paid. A 2WW spell can be paid with 1UWW, BRWW, GGWW, and so on, precisely because the cost of a spell doesn't indicate its colorless requirement - it's its generic mana requirement plus its colored requirement.

The only thing you have to know that is different now is that a spell that costs 2<> has one mana that must be paid strictly in colorless, and two generic mana that could be anything. This is different from a generic cost of 3 as obviously you can pay any combination you can think of to cast that spell. Also, a cost of 2<> is not an analogue to 1 + (two of some color) for the same reason; while you could pay two Red mana and a colorless to cast a 2<> spell, if you read it left-to-right it's more like you're paying RR<>. This is not that weird.

I mean I hate to add to the clutter here but -- really the only thing this actually does is create a kind of cost that may only be paid with colorless mana. That's all it does, even though it could potentially rebrand "Add 2 to your mana pool" to "Add <><> to your mana pool". But maybe it won't even do that.

Here's the thing -- and again, this is just playing off the speculative notion that <> == :1: -- if the above is true, and <> is only part of a spell's cost during Zendikar, then technically this is still not a "parasitic" effect because <> is the same as :1:, still. So you can tap your Wastes to pay for the part of the generic cost of Fact or Fiction, AND you can use an Ancient Tomb to pay for the <><> of Kozilek The Recently Spoiled.

The only way this absolutely sucks ass is if <> is a completely and totally unique kind of mana, one that is colorless but does not equal the kind of mana that Darksteel Citadel produces (for example). In which case, yes this is bad and Wizards should feel bad.

Ultimately we would have to wait and see, but I can hardly imagine that <> is anything but simply a new way to represent colorless mana, both as a means of production AND costing a spell. In the strictest sense of the word? Since the Rules Of The Game clearly state that the cost of a spell contains generic mana as opposed to colorless, there has never been a time when you've paid 'generic' mana anyway, so this is all fine and nothing is different, at all. Really.

[TsumiBand]

Think of it like this: a spell that costs :3:<><>:r: requires only that two colorless and one R absolutely be paid; the :3: is generic(not colorless, it was never colorless) and may be paid with any color of mana, including mana with no color. This spell could not be costed at :5::r: because that would imply you could cast it for <>WUBRG.

[GundamGuy]

Ultimately we would have to wait and see, but I can hardly imagine that <> is anything but simply a new way to represent colorless mana, both as a means of production AND costing a spell. In the strictest sense of the word? Since the Rules Of The Game clearly state that the cost of a spell contains generic mana as opposed to colorless, there has never been a time when you've paid 'generic' mana anyway, so this is all fine and nothing is different, at all. Really.


Well your mostly correct and I agree with you that if <> == to :1: then it's pretty simple on the surface to understand.

From an actual how does this really work in the Comprehensive rules I think it's not super simple.

The thing that is a little different is the way subtypes work on Land cards today doesn't really make sense with Waste. I'm sure they'll fix this but it's a bit strange.

The card Tropical Island does not need to have any rules text printed on the card because Lands with the subtypes Island and Forest have the inherent ability to tap for U or G. Basic lands are the same which is why they stopped printing rules text on them a few years ago, and how they could justify full art lands (and not Expeditions with the rules text on them).

The trick here is that Wastes is a Basic Land Card with no subtypes and no rules text, yet presumably produces mana. This is kind of bad on wizards period because now they either have to tie this inherent ability Tap: Add :1: to your mana pool, to the card name (pretty ugly rules wise), or "Lands with the Supertype Basic and no Subtypes now have the inherent ability Tap: Add :1: to your mana pool." Which again i personally feel is pretty ugly rules wise, also if there were ever a card printed that removed land types it could be used to give lands the power to tap for <>.

They totally won't give us "Lands with no Subtypes have the inherent ability Tap: Add :1: to your mana pool." Because that would mean cards like Tabernacle would suddenly gain the ability to tap for <>.

That or this is just bad on Wizards because the card doesn't have a "inherent ability" and there should actually be rules text on that card but they decided to print it without rules text because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

TLDR;

The idea that <> means you must pay that portion of the cost with generic mana is easy to understand. The problem is there is no reason to change the symbol for generic mana on cards that produce generic mana to make that work. Additionally we have a land with no rules text and no subtypes that produces mana... and that's pretty crazy and new.

[jrsthethird]

The thing that is a little different is the way subtypes work on Land cards today doesn't really make sense with Waste. I'm sure they'll fix this but it's a bit strange.

There is a very simple change to this. Two sentences:

Basic lands can always tap for mana.

If a basic land has no subtypes, it taps for <> (or :1:, assuming they are equivalent).

It's a very simple way to handle the complex problem you made. True, there may be no cards currently that remove land types, so we aren't ruining the printed functionality of any of the cards. Also, if that was the case, there would probably be errata to make the old card function as printed in the new rules.

Actually, this rules change opens the door to print a card that does just that. Would they print such a powerful Basic land hoser? God no. But at least it would give you colorless if they did.

[rufus]

I wonder how False Dawn will interact with <>.

[TsumiBand]

The full art lands never have rules text.

There are almost certainly going to be standard-frame Wastes, which may have the requisite (add <> to your mana pool) text.

Even if not, this is an easy thing to address. Since Basic Land is reserved solely for, well, basic lands...one just adds a blurb in the rules that a basic land always can add mana; if it has a type, it adds the corresponding color, if not it adds <>.

This is why rules gurus don't answer rules questions about unreleased cards; the implementation details may explain all this easily. We can't know until the FAQ comes out.

[death]

Why the need for a rules text or rules change when the basic land Wastes (http://i.imgur.com/CO1Ue17.png) is simply just that except it has no land type. The diamond symbol would then stand for "this land taps for <>" (which pays for <> obv). It is safe to assume <> is colorless (and can also pay for :1:) but <> would not be equivalent to :1:.

This answers the question if Ancient Tomb and Darksteel Citadel would still tap for :2: and :1: respectively after the set's release.

[TsumiBand]

Why the need for a rules text or rules change when the basic land Wastes is simply just that except it has no land type. The diamond symbol would then stand for "this land taps for <>" (which pays for <> obv). It is safe to assume <> is colorless (and can also pay for :1:) but <> would not be equivalent to :1:.

This answers the question if Ancient Tomb and Darksteel Citadel would still tap for :2: and :1: respectively after the set's release.

Okay so - I don't want to type <> anymore bc I'm on my phone, so I'm calling it D. Because it's a diamond shape.

Making D not equal to :1: is effectively adding a new color, which is bad considering it makes the concept of colorless mana needlessly complex (why are there multiple kinds of colorless mana but just one kind of the rest) but it doesn't jive with the "Eldrazi are older than colors" thing.

I can only expect that D is precisely like :1: in terms of adding it to your pool and spending it. Ancient Tomb will tap for DD which is no different than now, and a mana cost of 1B can be paid with DB which is just as it is now, BUT a mana cost of DRR can ONLY be paid with 1 colorless and two Red, which is different than a cost of 1RR because the 1 is generic and could be anything.

Really don't focus on mana production - the issue is more to do with paying costs.

[from Cairo]

This diamond thing sounds horrible, hope it is a minor (read as irrelevant) player going forward making colorless a color in a large scope sounds like a nightmare.

[jrsthethird]

I wonder how False Dawn will interact with <>.

It won't. At least, under the assumption that <> = :1:.


Why the need for a rules text or rules change when the basic land Wastes (http://i.imgur.com/CO1Ue17.png) is simply just that except it has no land type. The diamond symbol would then stand for "this land taps for <>" (which pays for <> obv). It is safe to assume <> is colorless (and can also pay for :1:) but <> would not be equivalent to :1:.

Because a big fat :g: sybmol is not rules text. The same rule that makes Badlands and Dryad Arbor have no rules text, and Sapseep Forest and Murmuring Bosk tap for :g: is the rule that makes Basic lands tap for mana. The fact that Forest, Plains, Underground Sea, Canopy Vista, Mistveil Plains, or a Tabernacle enchanted with Spreading Seas tap for mana does not depend on rules text, it depends on the clause in the Comprehensive Rules that gives the ability to anything with that specific Basic land type.

The rules need to change because there is nothing currently in the rules that says a Basic land with no type taps for colorless mana. The <> symbol is a placeholder, with as much rules meaning as the words "converge", "spell mastery", or "Poly artifact". It is not a rule.


This answers the question if Ancient Tomb and Darksteel Citadel would still tap for :2: and :1: respectively after the set's release.

This all depends on whether <> is the parasitic beast we fear, or if it's just plain colorless mana. Then those lands would probably receive errata to be "Add <><> to your mana pool." and "Add <> to your mana pool.", respectively. Further printings would be corrected, we'd see this in every set, etc. Nobody knows.


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

Addressing this point from the OP:

Maze's End is another Mythic, non-Legendary utility land in recent memory. Unless there's a specific reason mechanically, WOTC decided to shy away from Legendary Lands. Part of the reason is unfun, but the flavor part is that the lands aren't the actual place (i.e. Gaea's Cradle, Volrath's Stronghold, etc.); they only represent the player/planeswalker's tie to that place. We actually aren't moving terrain across the multiverse when playing a land; we're simply calling on the power of a place we have visited.

[tescrin]

What if it's:
"Basic lands tap for <> or X"

where Forest now means:

{t} Add G or <> to your mana pool

and then there are lands that produce pho-basic mana..?
This would mesh with the lands just released (given the basic types.)

EDIT:
Or another idea:
Basic supertype -> Add <> to your Mana Pool
Forest -> Add G to your mana pool

So a basic Forest is Add <> or G to your mana pool; Wastes is just Add <>; and Savannah is still just Add G or W to your mana pool.

[Quasim0ff]

I assume <> will require colourless, as in no colours, to be spent on casting it.

G, W, R, U, B isn't colourless which means, at least I'd think so, that you can't spend the 5 basic colours on <>, just like G can't be spend on W.

This also confirms that the mana cost isn't just 10, but 8 <><>.

[Amon Amarth]

Well this colorless thing looks terrible. I was always a fan of snow but that had some cool flavor with it. This I'm not so sure about. This block looks like its going to be crap.

[Darkenslight]

I wonder how False Dawn will interact with <>.

Simple - everything with <> becomes :w: . That's it. The same applies to effects like Celestial Dawn

[Exodus]

Simple - everything with <> becomes :w: . That's it. The same applies to effects like Celestial Dawn

I don't think so. Colorless is not a color. Thus it doesn't count as color for sunburst and it's not affected by All is dust for example. All the confusion comes from the fact that till now people used indiscriminately "colorless" and "generic". The first one is now a specific type of mana that, I hope, could be generated by any lands or abilities with no color in his description (i.e. cavern of souls, grim monolith, etc..). The confusion would come from the fact that generic cost in a spell and colorless mana in a land share the same symbols (until now that <> is introduced) but are different things.

But at the same time it makes totally sense: when you use Grim Monolith mana ability, the mana generated is not "generic" since generic means it could be of all colors (when you cast a spell with generic mana you pratically use colored mana of your choice). Thus Grim Monolith generates "colorless" mana which can be used to pay generic (since generic means basically everything you want, as long as it's mana) AND <>.

[Ace/Homebrew]

a mana cost of <>:r::r: can ONLY be paid with 1 colorless and two Red, which is different than a cost of :1::r::r: because the 1 is generic and could be anything.
I didn't even consider the implications that spells could mix the requirement of "have to use a colorless source" with "have to use a source of color X" in the new block.
The only Legacy decks that are equipped to deal with that would be mono-color Vial decks like D&T, Goblins, and Merfolk... All of them tend to run at least 8 colorless lands (Wasteland and Port/Mutavault) along with Vial to get around the non-color requirement.

With the prevalence of fetch/dual manabases in Eternal, costs requiring <> could be an enormous constraint if combined with a color as the decks that have access to colorless sources usually don't have access to sources of color (MUD/Shops). I guess 12Post is an exception.

[Reaver027]

To me it looks like they will finally give colorless mana its own symbol.
We never produced generic mana. We always produced colorless mana that could only be used for generic mana.
Now they found a way to split up the symbols for colorless and generic.

So i am in the <> = :1: when producing mana camp.
:1: will never be found again when it comes to producing mana.
<> can only be payed with colorless mana.
:1: can be payed with any mana as always.

[GundamGuy]

What if it's:
"Basic lands tap for <> or X"

where Forest now means:

{t} Add G or <> to your mana pool

and then there are lands that produce pho-basic mana..?
This would mesh with the lands just released (given the basic types.)

EDIT:
Or another idea:
Basic supertype -> Add <> to your Mana Pool
Forest -> Add G to your mana pool

So a basic Forest is Add <> or G to your mana pool; Wastes is just Add <>; and Savannah is still just Add G or W to your mana pool.

I don't think this can be right, becuase it would defeat the point of "<> can only be paid with colorless" if Basic Lands could tap for a color and colorless.

[tescrin]

I don't think this can be right, becuase it would defeat the point of "<> can only be paid with colorless" if Basic Lands could tap for a color and colorless.
That's circular logic. You're assuming your conclusion and refuting my hypothesis with it.
That doesn't work.

[GundamGuy]

That's circular logic. You're assuming your conclusion and refuting my hypothesis with it.
That doesn't work.

Ok, so what does <> in the casting cost of a card mean under your senario. If it's designed to restrict the type of mana spent to cast the card, giving all basic land the ability to produce <> means that 8<><> and :10: are functionally the same.

:1: can be paid with WUBRG or :1: mana currently. In this case <> can be paid with Basics that produce WUBRG or :1:...

So the interpertation would be 8 generic mana and two mana that comes from Basic lands of any subtype?



So i am in the <> = :1: when producing mana camp.
:1: will never be found again when it comes to producing mana.
<> can only be payed with colorless mana.
:1: can be payed with any mana as always.

<> = :1:, <> can only be payed with colorless mana, and :1: can be payed with any mana source as alwasy can all be true without the bolded being true. That's why I have problems with this and why I think this is just a bad Snow knockoff.

[Morte]

I didn't even consider the implications that spells could mix the requirement of "have to use a colorless source" with "have to use a source of color X" in the new block.
The only Legacy decks that are equipped to deal with that would be mono-color Vial decks like D&T, Goblins, and Merfolk... All of them tend to run at least 8 colorless lands (Wasteland and Port/Mutavault) along with Vial to get around the non-color requirement.

With the prevalence of fetch/dual manabases in Eternal, costs requiring <> could be an enormous constraint if combined with a color as the decks that have access to colorless sources usually don't have access to sources of color (MUD/Shops). I guess 12Post is an exception.

Don't forget RG Lands, it plays minimum 12 colorless mana producing lands (and an engine to see a lot of lands). Too bad Mirrorpool doesn't fit there

[Fox]

I think the most relevant aspect of this new "Wastes" basic supertype to us legacy players is the fact that old cards can hit specific basic types - more pointedly, the apparently new development whereby a colored basic mana can be changed to colorless.

[tescrin]

Ok, so what does <> in the casting cost of a card mean under your senario. If it's designed to restrict the type of mana spent to cast the card, giving all basic land the ability to produce <> means that 8<><> and :10: are functionally the same.

:1: can be paid with WUBRG or :1: mana currently. In this case <> can be paid with Basics that produce WUBRG or :1:...

So the interpertation would be 8 generic mana and two mana that comes from Basic lands of any subtype?

Do keep in mind, I was pointing out your bad argument; not that I'm obviously correct or something.

I proposed two versions:

"Basic" mana, where only basics would work for the mana type. Wastes is just the "default" in this case, no rules changes required. <> would just mean "Mana from Basic Lands."

The second version would be

<> says "Mana that comes from Basic Land Types" where Shocks, Duals, and Forests and things would count as <>, but Sulfurous Springs wouldn't work, because it does not produce <> nor does its mana work for it.


That said, both of these ideas have issues with why they would create the card "Wastes" other than cleverly showing that basics always produce this. Thusly, I actually think Tsunami's comments make the most sense.

BUT, that doesn't change the fact that your argument wasgarbage; hence my pointing it out rather than defending my position.

[TsumiBand]

Ok, so what does <> in the casting cost of a card mean under your senario. If it's designed to restrict the type of mana spent to cast the card, giving all basic land the ability to produce <> means that 8<><> and :10: are functionally the same.

:1: can be paid with WUBRG or :1: mana currently. In this case <> can be paid with Basics that produce WUBRG or :1:...

So the interpertation would be 8 generic mana and two mana that comes from Basic lands of any subtype?



<> = :1:, <> can only be payed with colorless mana, and :1: can be payed with any mana source as alwasy can all be true without the bolded being true. That's why I have problems with this and why I think this is just a bad Snow knockoff.

It isn't Snow, and it isn't the same as generic mana requirements of spells.

I feel like the bulk of the confusion comes from the fact that generic mana and colorless mana have been represented so similarly for a long time that we're used to thinking of the :2: in mana costs as the same as the :2: that Ancient Tomb produces. This simply isn't accurate; the :2: in a spell could be paid with any color (or lack of color) you wish. It isn't colorless; it isn't anything. A spell that costs 2RR says "I cost 4 mana total, and two of it has to be Red. The other two can be whatever you got for me." It's like when you break change for someone and they say "I need 20 dollars back - I need to get two fives back though." If they don't care about the other 10 bucks, you can give it to them in dollar bills, a 10-spot, assortments of change, and so on. D is just an addition to the WUBRG we already deal with.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. I mean really, it's kind of a mistake to use the same symbol to represent generic mana and colorless mana, right -- when a spell is costed as 2WW, you tap lands to produce W to pay the W, right, but you can pay the 2 with anything. You tap Ancient Tomb and it says "Add 2 to your mana pool" -- but you aren't adding generic mana, you're adding colorless mana. It isn't "whatever I don't care" mana. It does not represent the same concept as the 2 in the casting cost. You can pay the 2 with it, of course you can, and it may even be right to do so much of the time -- but that 2 in the cost would accept any color you give it. We could add 27 colors to the game in the next 5 years, and that 2 in the casting cost doesn't give a fuck; it just wants whatever-the-hell mana you got. Meanwhile, colorless mana is just that; it's mana without a color.

TLDR the problem is that generic mana and colorless mana have always used the same symbol and if they had never done it in that way then this wouldn't even be a point of contention. Generic mana is unique because it is a cost that isn't on a 1-for-1 relationship with the symbol it shares. You pay for R with R, you pay for B with B; you can pay for 1 with anything, but if you generate 1, it can only be used to pay for colorless things. Now that Wastes makes D, it is obviously used to pay D costs, and the generic mana symbol still works in the same way because it never would have cared anyway.

It's picayune, sure, but it tracks well with the existing logic of the rest of the mana cost rules, and it opens the door for a truely colorless deck that requires colorless mana and cannot work with existing colored accelerants. Imagine if All Is Dust cost DDDDDDD; you couldn't play it by tapping your Priest of Titania or accelerate into it using LED, you'd have to use Ancient Tombs or the Urzatron or something, but you couldn't just toss the spell into an existing deck that just happens to generate metric shit tons of colored mana. It really would give people a new angle to brew from and could lead to printing some very interesting effects that are at once colorless without just falling into the best decks in the formats they're legal in.

[tescrin]

I think this mechanic implies we're also going to go back to mirrodin in a year or so. [Innistrad, New Block, New Block or Mirrodin, New Block or Mirrodin] which also meshes with Maro dropping the hint "we can visit some planes more than two times."

Next leveled you wotc

[Cire]

At this point I agree with TsumiBand, and guess that every colorless mana producer in the past will be errated to produce <>.

[GundamGuy]

BUT, that doesn't change the fact that your argument wasgarbage; hence my pointing it out rather than defending my position.

You can call my argument garbage if you want. I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever that Wizards would introduce "basic" matters in a set that focuses on the Eldrazi that come from the Void, are devoid of color and who's movement is making everything into generic "wastes."


I proposed two versions:

"Basic" mana, where only basics would work for the mana type. Wastes is just the "default" in this case, no rules changes required. <> would just mean "Mana from Basic Lands."

The second version would be

<> says "Mana that comes from Basic Land Types" where Shocks, Duals, and Forests and things would count as <>, but Sulfurous Springs wouldn't work, because it does not produce <> nor does its mana work for it.


If <> is either "mana from basic lands" or "mana from lands with basic land types" Explain Mirrorpool since it's neither basic nor has any basic land types, yet produces <>.

[jrsthethird]

Simple - everything with <> becomes :w: . That's it. The same applies to effects like Celestial Dawn

False Dawn only affects colored mana. <> is colorless; it has no color. It is unaffected by False Dawn. Celestial Dawn, OTOH, turns your Wastes into Plains, so they will produce :w: instead of <>. The difference is that False Dawn affects the mana that is produced (represented by <>), whereas Celestial Dawn affects the card that produces the mana.


I think the most relevant aspect of this new "Wastes" basic supertype to us legacy players

Wastes is not a supertype. The supertype is Basic. Wastes has no other types (besides Land, which is a given). Wastes is simply the name of the card.


is the fact that old cards can hit specific basic types - more pointedly, the apparently new development whereby a colored basic mana can be changed to colorless.

I don't know specifically what cards you're talking about, but I don't think it works the way you're understanding it. Take Phantasmal Terrain, for example. You can't use it to make a land produce only colorless mana, because there is no basic land type that corresponds to colorless mana. You still only have 5 choices to choose from: Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest. Wastes is not a type.



"Basic" mana, where only basics would work for the mana type. Wastes is just the "default" in this case, no rules changes required. <> would just mean "Mana from Basic Lands."

This is theoretically possible, but the Mirrorpool example clashes with this idea hard, so I doubt it.



<> says "Mana that comes from Basic Land Types" where Shocks, Duals, and Forests and things would count as <>, but Sulfurous Springs wouldn't work, because it does not produce <> nor does its mana work for it.


This can't work, because Wastes doesn't have a type. It wouldn't be able to produce <> under the rule you propose.

[tescrin]

You can call my argument garbage if you want.

Thank you, because it was garbage. It's a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning, in which you derive your answer from the answer. It's a tautology saying "It's true because it's true" without any evidence that it's true. Logical reasoning and argumentation are important, so I called you out on your bad reasoning, regardless if I agree with you. Just because you don't respect the foundations of all knowledge doesn't mean somehow you're correct in doing so or make me wrong in wishing to show it said respect.



I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever that Wizards would introduce "basic" matters in a set that focuses on the Eldrazi that come from the Void, are devoid of color and who's movement is making everything into generic "wastes." I guess? I'm not too worried about what makes sense to you. From a gameplay perspective it would seem to make sense and line up with their releases, though I'm not even contending that as anything other than a reasonable possibility.



If <> is either "mana from basic lands" or "mana from lands with basic land types" Explain Mirrorpool since it's neither basic nor has any basic land types, yet produces <>.
Easy; it's a card that does what it says; subverting the normal rules. Under your logic, cards in magic are defined by the rules of the game, not by the rules on the card; so Flash doesn't make any sense because it tells you can cast things at certain times that the rules explicitly say you can't cast at those times.

Just like ICP with magnets (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvmvxAcT_Yc); the idea that you may not understand how something works doesn't mean it's inexplicable.


EDIT: This all said, I do agree that Tsumi's line of thinking makes more sense. For some reason we're arguing a mechanical tangent despite me admitting this.

[GundamGuy]

At this point I agree with TsumiBand, and guess that every colorless mana producer in the past will be errated to produce <>.

I agree that TsumiBand makes some really good points, and agree that a lot of the confustion has to do with Generic Mana Cost vs Colorless Mana. It's correct I guess to say the :1: in Tap: Add :1: to your mana pool and :1: in 1RR do not mean the same thing.

I also agree that adding a symbol that means must be colorless is cool and adds a lot of new development space to cards and mana costs, as TsumiBand pointed out.

The thing is all of this could be 100% accomplished without the <> appearing in mana abilities.

My heartburn about this comes from the fact that only justification we've seen so far for making this change in mana abilities is because :1: doesn't look good as a symbol on the Full Art land "Wastes. " I agree that it doesn't look good but I find that to be a really silly reason to go back and erata all mana abilities that produced colorless mana up to this point.

[GundamGuy]

Easy; it's a card that does what it says; subverting the normal rules. Under your logic, cards in magic are defined by the rules of the game, not by the rules on the card; so Flash doesn't make any sense because it tells you can cast things at certain times that the rules explicitly say you can't cast at those times.



It's funny that the person using ad hominem attacks is accusing others of using logical fallacies when they point out that your solution isn't even consistent with the information we already know. :laugh:

Yes there are cards in magic that violate the normal game rules. Introducing the "mechanic" "The Supertype Basic Matters" and printing a Non-basic that throws that out the window in the same set would be an epic level troll on the part of Wizards. On top of that this means that <> would have to work like snow.

[Cire]

My heartburn about this comes from the fact that only justification we've seen so far for making this change in mana abilities is because :1: doesn't look good as a symbol on the Full Art land "Wastes. " I agree that it doesn't look good but I find that to be a really silly reason to go back and erata all mana abilities that produced colorless mana up to this point.

This was the only reason I was trying to figure out if there was another thing producing <> would mean (especially since we have lands from the last set producing (1); but really, I'm not surprised that wizards would make a change like this, regardless of how unnecessary it is.

[TsumiBand]

I agree that TsumiBand makes some really good points, and agree that a lot of the confustion has to do with Generic Mana Cost vs Colorless Mana. It's correct I guess to say the :1: in Tap: Add :1: to your mana pool and :1: in 1RR do not mean the same thing.

I also agree that adding a symbol that means must be colorless is cool and adds a lot of new development space to cards and mana costs, as TsumiBand pointed out.

The thing is all of this could be 100% accomplished without the <> appearing in mana abilities.

My heartburn about this comes from the fact that only justification we've seen so far for making this change in mana abilities is because :1: doesn't look good as a symbol on the Full Art land "Wastes. " I agree that it doesn't look good but I find that to be a really silly reason to go back and erata all mana abilities that produced colorless mana up to this point.

Aesthetics aside, it also means that cards which generate multiple amounts of mana all fall under the same template now.

For example look at Ritual cards -
Desperate Ritual: Add RRR to your mana pool.
Dark Ritual: Add BBB to your mana pool.

As we're aware, until the advent of the colorless symbol, this was represented as "Add 3 to your mana pool". Now, though, an imaginary colorless ritual card would look something like this -
Arcbound Ritual: Add DDD to your mana pool.

IMHO, this is great. It brings colorless mana generation effects inline with the look of similar effects that happen to have colored mana. It further distinguishes the generic cost symbol from the colorless mana symbol. I like it when operators aren't quite so overloaded. *looks at 'counter'; looks at Phantom Centaur, looks at Dismiss; sighs*

[rufus]

.... *looks at 'counter'; looks at Phantom Centaur, looks at Dismiss; sighs*



Counter Counter
U
Instant
Counter target instant with "counter" in the text.
When you cast counter counter targeting counter counter put a counter counter counter counter counter on counter counter for each counter counter spell.
Remove a counter counter counter counter counter from counter counter: Counter target counter counter spell.

[Mr. Safety]

In a recent Q&A article from Maro he said the most difficult change to magic would be to add a sixth color (paraphrase.) I believe wotc is flirting with this without actually adding a sixth color and instead further developing colorless mechanics. As a side note, I can now include a Wastes in my modern MUD tron deck for path to exile/ghost quarter interactions instead of that ugly singleton Island I was using.

Does anyone think these colorless basics may develop into a "wastes matter" mana engine? Similar to Cloudpost counting Locuses (Loci?) It would be similar to post but weaker, for example: Wastepost - add <> to your mana pool. If you control 2 or more wastes add <> <> instead.

[Dice_Box]

I would be interested to see what they do with this. Thinking from a Shops viewpoint, this could make an interesting impact on the deck in the future should something of a decent power be printed. Because while you have a lot of Colourless mana sources, 27 percent of your mana is coloured.

Will be interesting.

[GundamGuy]

Does anyone think these colorless basics may develop into a "wastes matter" mana engine? Similar to Cloudpost counting Locuses (Loci?) It would be similar to post but weaker, for example: Wastepost - add <> to your mana pool. If you control 2 or more wastes add <> <> instead.


IMO I doubt it, if they wanted to go down that path I think they would had Wastes have a subtype. Locus works using the Subtype Locus, having the mechanic be add <> to your mana pool for each land named Wastes you control is possible, but based on how things have been done in recent years doesn't seem like the approach they would use.

[TsumiBand]

I would be interested to see what they do with this. Thinking from a Shops viewpoint, this could make an interesting impact on the deck in the future should something of a decent power be printed. Because while you have a lot of Colourless mana sources, 27 percent of your mana is coloured.

Will be interesting.

Yeah, exactly. Imagine a colorless/artifact deck that doesn't make Tolarian Academy better. There's actually a whole lot of space in the realm of having heavy colorless requirements, if only because they have never done it before, but also because a series of cards which a 3-color, fetchland enabled, Wasteland playing manabase wouldn't just absorb without a fairly major overhaul.

[rufus]

IMO I doubt it, if they wanted to go down that path I think they would had Wastes have a subtype. Locus works using the Subtype Locus, having the mechanic be add <> to your mana pool for each land named Wastes you control is possible, but based on how things have been done in recent years doesn't seem like the approach they would use.

The lack of a 'wastes' land type on the spoiled card does make my speculation about fetchable 'wastes-duals' less plausible. <shrug>

[Cire]

The lack of a 'wastes' land type on the spoiled card does make my speculation about fetchable 'wastes-duals' less plausible. <shrug>

We can still get super ugly waste fetches like "Search your library for a basic land card that is not an island, swamp, mountain or a plains." for a G<> fetch. :tongue: (joking guys :wink:)

[TsumiBand]

For that matter its as simple as the weird utility lands like Mistveil Plains - just print a land with one subtype and the requisite text.

Baseball Field
Land - Plains

(T: add W to your mana pool.)
T: add D to your mana pool.

The problem with this is it kind of fucks with the idea that spells with a D in the cost are uniquely costed. If you can fetch a UD dual because it's an Island, then it's no different than a regularly costed spell.

I mean they COULD do this and maybe you'd see decks crop up that have easy access to D, and they would have rad manabase names like BUD Combro or DRUG Prison or something. Wouldn't that be some shit.

If they don't do this though, it actually kind of makes the old painlands a little better because they would effectively tap for three distinct kinds of mana.

[Cire]

BUD Combro or DRUG Prison.

Yes please.

[GundamGuy]

The lack of a 'wastes' land type on the spoiled card does make my speculation about fetchable 'wastes-duals' less plausible. <shrug>

That's true, and that wouldn't actually shock me at all. Since we know there are 10 Expeditions that are really pretty open right now. (My guess is 10 will be the dual manlands, 10 will be?)

I just don't see it turning into a Locus like situation, even more so if we have cards with different names (I.E. 'wastes-duals') and no common subtype.

Add one D to your mana pool for each card named waste and each card with type 'wastes' you control seems pretty ackward. Or any ability that scales like that.

As to Fetching wastes... two guesses, if things hold with what we have now and they have no subtype to fetch for, perhaps we get more cards that find "basic Lands" Perhaps we finally get the (absurdly good, but not completely busted)

Wastes of Time : Tap pay 1 life, sacrifice ~: Search your Libary for a Basic Land card and put it into play.

The other guess is they actually do have a subtype but uh... ?

[rufus]

That's true, and that wouldn't actually shock me at all. Since we know there are 10 Expeditions that are really pretty open right now. (My guess is 10 will be the dual manlands, 10 will be?)
....

There are enemy tap duals, and they could make 5 wastes-duals that have a basic land type, but also tap for D (so they'd be 'half fetchable').

[rufus]

...
The problem with this is it kind of fucks with the idea that spells with a D in the cost are uniquely costed. If you can fetch a UD dual because it's an Island, then it's no different than a regularly costed spell.
...

Can you clarify what you mean by 'uniquely costed'? After all, a Volcanic Island is also an island, and it can be fetched to pay for :r: .

[Barook]

DRUG Prison
Oh boy, I can't wait for Patrick Chapin showing with a prison deck called DRUG Staxx or a brew based around Wheel and Deal called DRUG Dealer.

[Richard Cheese]

Oh boy, I can't wait for Patrick Chapin showing with a prison deck called DRUG Staxx or a brew based around Wheel and Deal called DRUG Dealer.

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_small/8/86603/2639772-dark-souls-2-gavlan.jpg
Someone say...wheel?

[wcm8]

Oh boy, I can't wait for Patrick Chapin showing with a prison deck called DRUG Staxx or a brew based around Wheel and Deal called DRUG Dealer.

Real life experience probably helps

[Octopusman]

I am onboard the "D" train.

Git GUD.

[Meekrab]

Again. . . . I totally get <> as a cost. But producing <> makes no sense unless <> is treated differently than producing generic mana.
There's no such thing as producing generic mana. There are only six types of mana, read the rules, section 106.1b: "There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless."

Generic mana only exists in costs. <> in a cost means "one colorless mana." :1: in a cost means "one mana."

It's not complex at all.

[Cire]

There's no such thing as producing generic mana. There are only six types of mana, read the rules, section 106.1b: "There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless."

Generic mana only exists in costs. <> in a cost means "one colorless mana." :1: in a cost means "one mana."

It's not complex at all.

I get all that - but that also means that all producers of colorless mana in the past will be erratad to produce D or <> whatever we're calling it now (I'm going to call it D since I want DRUG Prison and BUD ComBRO to happen). I am fine with that, but a little annoyed that they printed lands that produce (1) in a set in a block in which they implement this errata.

[TsumiBand]

I get all that - but that also means that all producers of colorless mana in the past will be erratad to produce D or <> whatever we're calling it now (I'm going to call it D since I want DRUG Prison and BUD ComBRO to happen). I am fine with that, but a little annoyed that they printed lands that produce (1) in a set in a block in which they implement this errata.

This is legit. They do goofy stuff like this. I'm trying to remember what exactly it was but there was a recent set where they keyworded a thing, and then the very next set it was on a few cards but not as a keyword, and it was real dumb. I can't remember what exactly I'm thinking about here, but it's definitely happened before and (I think) in the middle of a set, and it's super weird when they do that.

[Barook]

This is legit. They do goofy stuff like this. I'm trying to remember what exactly it was but there was a recent set where they keyworded a thing, and then the very next set it was on a few cards but not as a keyword, and it was real dumb. I can't remember what exactly I'm thinking about here, but it's definitely happened before and (I think) in the middle of a set, and it's super weird when they do that.
They're probably trying to get a free pass because "hurr durr, 2 set block change".

[rufus]

This is legit. They do goofy stuff like this. I'm trying to remember what exactly it was but there was a recent set where they keyworded a thing, and then the very next set it was on a few cards but not as a keyword, and it was real dumb. I can't remember what exactly I'm thinking about here, but it's definitely happened before and (I think) in the middle of a set, and it's super weird when they do that.

Do you mean kicker? :tongue:

[TsumiBand]

Do you mean kicker? :tongue:

Hahaha

I think it was some evasion ability, like Intimidate or Menace of something. They keyworded it, then had the functional equivalent in the next set over. Sonething like that.

[jrsthethird]

easy access to D


Add one D


I am onboard the "D" train.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/562328309933948928/TQ_Wlsu6.jpeg

[joven]

I'm already disappointed with the upcoming set.
New Kozilek seems bad. And that <>-thingy is horrible no matter how it may actually work.
A colorless basic land would be fine, but the <> mana symbol seems just dumb IMO.

[cartoonist]

Unless this is like Phyrexian mana, in which you pay some price like life. Wastes might just be a non-basic to get that mana without the alternate cost.

[sjmcc13]

And that <>-thingy is horrible no matter how it may actually work.
A colorless basic land would be fine, but the <> mana symbol seems just dumb IMO.
To me the only way it could work, and not be stupid, is if the symbol means "colorless mana only", which could be an interesting idea for designing cards.

But using it on a basic land (as oposed to just :1:) indicates that is might not be the case...

[Dice_Box]

I now have a 50 dollar bet riding on this on the Mana Drain. He says snow land, I say colourless cost.

I am seriously putting my money where my mouth is.

[thecrav]

I now have a 50 dollar bet riding on this on the Mana Drain. He says snow land, I say colourless cost.

I am seriously putting my money where my mouth is.

Don't forget the internet version of laughing about being right / admitting to being wrong - show us that PayPal transaction when the money gets sent!

[MGB]

Patrick Chapin, on his podcast with Mike Flores, is *convinced* that they are going to be reprinting Mana Drain in this new set... but with Eldrazi mana as the casting cost instead.

[Dice_Box]

Patrick Chapin, on his podcast with Mike Flores, is *convinced* that they are going to be reprinting Mana Drain in this new set... but with Eldrazi mana as the casting cost instead.

Gods, it they did that the mana would have to be Snow.

I think he is coming from when they tried to add "City" as a mana source (Purple in colour) and Drain was meant to be the colours apex card. This time I do not think that would happen. I mean if Counterspell can not be printed in Standard then Drain really can't be.

[dte]

Patrick Chapin, on his podcast with Mike Flores, is *convinced* that they are going to be reprinting Mana Drain in this new set... but with Eldrazi mana as the casting cost instead.

Hard to imagine. Imagine MUD if they do that? It wouldn't be consistent with the recent ban of CotV in vintage.

Or, the new mana is not just colorless, but much more like the snow mechanics.

Edit: Dice was faster, but I fully agree with him

[QBChaz]

If this ends up working like a new colour but all the cards effectively have Devoid can we agree that the new colour is called Brown? So Kozilek costs "eight, brown, brown".

[Dice_Box]

If this ends up working like a new colour but all the cards effectively have Devoid can we agree that the new colour is called Brown? So Kozilek costs "eight, brown, brown".

No, I do not like that. Because Brown is the old colour of Artifacts and that's where the name MUD comes from. Brown in Magic to me means Artifacts not Land.

[Echelon]

Also - having brown mana left at the end of a random phase = I just shat myself..?

[rufus]

If this ends up working like a new colour but all the cards effectively have Devoid can we agree that the new colour is called Brown? So Kozilek costs "eight, brown, brown".

It doesn't work that way: there's no formal consensus on terminology. Instead, people use terms that they think gets their message accross. Something like "brown" is quite ambiguous. I'd think calling it 'devoid' mana or 'eldrazi' mana would work better.

[GundamGuy]

If this ends up working like a new colour but all the cards effectively have Devoid can we agree that the new colour is called Brown? So Kozilek costs "eight, brown, brown".


Based on what we've seen so far we might not get any <> cards with devoid since <> might only appear on cards with no colored mana costs. But I guess we could also get cards with cost like <>:r::b: with devoid, and perhaps cards with costs like that without devoid.

I don't know if we should make any assumptions about if <> will only show up on colorless cards or devoid cards (read 'colorless' by rule not be reality... thanks Wizards) yet.

[Cire]

It doesn't work that way: there's no formal consensus on terminology. Instead, people use terms that they think gets their message accross. Something like "brown" is quite ambiguous. I'd think calling it 'devoid' mana or 'eldrazi' mana would work better.

I'm going with D mana, because immature puns ("All aboard the D train! Whoo Whoo!") and deck naming potential ("Drug Prison and BUD ComBRO") do it for me. :tongue:.

Also I made this complaint before - but if <> is really just colorless mana, in the last block they made a whole mechanic and tokens (the scions!) that could have just sacrificed their lives for the D (heh), but now must be errated. That is so annoying.

[Barook]

I'm going with D mana, because immature puns ("All aboard the D train! Whoo Whoo!") and deck naming potential ("Drug Prison and BUD ComBRO") do it for me. :tongue:.

Also I made this complaint before - but if <> is really just colorless mana, in the last block they made a whole mechanic and tokens (the scions!) that could have just sacrificed their lives for the D (heh), but now must be errated. That is so annoying.
This opens up up some quite philosophical questions, like:

Did Emrakul leave the plain because she didn't like the D? Or is she on a quest to get more D from other planes, like the slutty little eldritch abomination she is?

[Richard Cheese]

I'm going with D mana, because immature puns ("All aboard the D train! Whoo Whoo!") and deck naming potential ("Drug Prison and BUD ComBRO") do it for me. :tongue:.

Also I made this complaint before - but if <> is really just colorless mana, in the last block they made a whole mechanic and tokens (the scions!) that could have just sacrificed their lives for the D (heh), but now must be errated. That is so annoying.

This is what really frustrates me. I think the colorless vs. generic explanation is most likely correct, but it seems so damn weird to introduce it in the second set of the block.

More evidence that the colorless vs. generic explanation is correct:

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/133764358703/rules-wise-is-there-a-practical-difference

[wcm8]

<> = (1) = D

Similarly, (3) = DDD = <><><>


If you look at cards like Blighted Cataract, Blighted Woodland, or Blighted Fen you'll notice the same Bismuth-Esque pattern indicative of Eldrazi presence. The Blighted land cycle also taps for (1), which will have the symbol be re-stylized as <> in the second set.

There are going to be 5 Wastes, 1 for each basic land type. The one that was leaked was a Mountain.

Eldrazi cards with <> in the cost will require colorless mana to fulfill their mana requirement. Colorless mana is distinguished from generic mana.

If they used previous formatting conventions, a card that costs "(6)<><>" would instead cost "(8)" but have a rules line saying "at least two mana used to cast this spell must be colorless mana".

[TsumiBand]

This is what really frustrates me. I think the colorless vs. generic explanation is most likely correct, but it seems so damn weird to introduce it in the second set of the block.

More evidence that the colorless vs. generic explanation is correct:

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/133764358703/rules-wise-is-there-a-practical-difference

That Blogatog post makes it seem pretty likely that I'm right (and many many other people as well, obv). D is not Snow or "Eldrazi" mana, it's just a new way to represent producing colorless mana while also separating it from generic mana costs.

[GundamGuy]

If they used previous formatting conventions, a card that costs "(6)<><>" would instead cost "(8)" but have a rules line saying "at least two mana used to cast this spell must be colorless mana".

No reason why they can't define D or (<>) in the casting cost of a spell to mean must be paid with colorless without changing all colorless mana producers.

Mana production and mana costs have never had to match for people to understand it before.


That Blogatog post makes it seem pretty likely that I'm right (and many many other people as well, obv). D is not Snow or "Eldrazi" mana, it's just a new way to represent producing colorless mana while also separating it from generic mana costs.

Still doesn't explain Mirrorpool, or why we need to erata mana producers at all.

[Cire]

Still doesn't explain Mirrorpool, or why we need to erata mana producers at all.

I buy the explanation at this point that they really really want to drive the point that colorless=/=generic in a visual way. I think it is super dumb, but I get it now :rolleyes:. It doesn't explain why they couldn't it do it during the first set though, especially when they could have made scions sac for D.

[GundamGuy]

I buy the explanation at this point that they really really want to drive the point that colorless=/=generic in a visual way. I think it is super dumb, but I get it now :rolleyes:. It doesn't explain why they couldn't it do it during the first set though, especially when they could have made scions sac for D.

I agree it's super dumb. It's extra dumb to introduce this style change halfway though a block... even more so when they could have done this and solve the problem that required the existance of "devoid."

Also for over 20 years colorless =/= generic and everyone has managed to understand it.

I'll put it this way, I would not be suprised in the least if Wizards has decided that just to be clear about this thing that no one had trouble understanding, they should erata thousands of colorless mana producers.
I also wouldn't be suprised if this turns out to be "Blighted" or "Eldrazi" mana.

Both of these seem approprate levels of Dumb for Wizards lately.

[Richard Cheese]

That Blogatog post makes it seem pretty likely that I'm right (and many many other people as well, obv). D is not Snow or "Eldrazi" mana, it's just a new way to represent producing colorless mana while also separating it from generic mana costs.

Which I actually like mechanically as far as casting/activation costs go, although I think if it's just going to be in half of a small block, it would have been a lot cleaner to just say "you must spend at least two colorless mana to cast ______" rather than introduce a new mana symbol. It just kinda reeks of keyword bloat. I'm afraid it's going to be like Cipher, Kinship, Exploit, etc. where it ends up on a dozen cards then collects dust in a box labeled "Mark's design experiments" somewhere in the R&D basement.

I guess that's not an issue if you just have a religious devotion to the limited/Standard environment, which makes a ton of sense if you're looking at the game from a shareholder perspective. I kinda wonder if they shouldn't start caring about eternal formats though. Part of what makes a collectible card game attractive is that it's collectible, and I just don't see how you can expect to leverage that aspect when you're constantly shoving new ideas down the pipe with no consideration of long-term effects. There's been a lot of talk about keeping the game interesting yet simple enough to attract new players, but how do you keep those players when every couple years the options are: sell all that shit at a loss and buy this new shit, or brush up on the comprehensive rules because because now you're looking at at least a decade of "keeping things fresh"?

[Dice_Box]

I actually have high hopes for this. If it comes though as hoped, it could add a lot to the game. It is in effect a "Sixth" colour without the issues "City" offered the game.

[TsumiBand]

Which I actually like mechanically as far as casting/activation costs go, although I think if it's just going to be in half of a small block, it would have been a lot cleaner to just say "you must spend at least two colorless mana to cast ______" rather than introduce a new mana symbol. It just kinda reeks of keyword bloat. I'm afraid it's going to be like Cipher, Kinship, Exploit, etc. where it ends up on a dozen cards then collects dust in a box labeled "Mark's design experiments" somewhere in the R&D basement.

I guess that's not an issue if you just have a religious devotion to the limited/Standard environment, which makes a ton of sense if you're looking at the game from a shareholder perspective. I kinda wonder if they shouldn't start caring about eternal formats though. Part of what makes a collectible card game attractive is that it's collectible, and I just don't see how you can expect to leverage that aspect when you're constantly shoving new ideas down the pipe with no consideration of long-term effects. There's been a lot of talk about keeping the game interesting yet simple enough to attract new players, but how do you keep those players when every couple years the options are: sell all that shit at a loss and buy this new shit, or brush up on the comprehensive rules because because now you're looking at at least a decade of "keeping things fresh"?

I won't disagree that the game has at least two very different looks and feels that have to be reconciled -- don't get me started on "original function errata" -- and yes, I agree that it makes all Eternal formats (even Modern) less attractive when there's such a disparate execution between Magic 10/20 years ago, and today.

Inasmuch as "Spend only ___ mana on this spell" or something similar, there are something like 9 cards that have previously done this - Soul Burn, Atalya, Consume Spirit, and so on. If it were used to establish a precedent, though, it's almost always tied to X costs. I guess there are 9 spells in particular that they were really concerned about people splashing in their Elves decks, or something?

I mean really, typically when they want to limit the kind of mana you spend on a spell, they already have a way of doing that - by putting the requirement in the casting cost. There just was no real way to do that with colored mana without adding that line of text to every spell that they wanted to have with that quality. Really the quickest and most familiar way to communicate "Spend N mana of Y color on this spell" is to just cost it appropriately. So D lets you do that, and it doesn't even break anything in the process.

Were you guys who dislike this change to colorless mana production this upset with the creature type overhaul or the introduction of the Flash keyword? This is kind of exactly that, only it's with colorless mana. If it even goes that far; if it even extends beyond this block. This is really not that damn big a deal, and honestly IMHO I feel like it's one of the better conceived game changes they've done in a really long time. Beats the hell out of undoing the 6th Ed "damage on the stack" awesome sauce. MAN I WANT TO JUST PUT DAMAGE ON THE STACK ALWAYS AND FOREVER, FUCK

[Barook]

Which I actually like mechanically as far as casting/activation costs go, although I think if it's just going to be in half of a small block, it would have been a lot cleaner to just say "you must spend at least two colorless mana to cast ______" rather than introduce a new mana symbol. It just kinda reeks of keyword bloat. I'm afraid it's going to be like Cipher, Kinship, Exploit, etc. where it ends up on a dozen cards then collects dust in a box labeled "Mark's design experiments" somewhere in the R&D basement.

I guess that's not an issue if you just have a religious devotion to the limited/Standard environment, which makes a ton of sense if you're looking at the game from a shareholder perspective. I kinda wonder if they shouldn't start caring about eternal formats though. Part of what makes a collectible card game attractive is that it's collectible, and I just don't see how you can expect to leverage that aspect when you're constantly shoving new ideas down the pipe with no consideration of long-term effects. There's been a lot of talk about keeping the game interesting yet simple enough to attract new players, but how do you keep those players when every couple years the options are: sell all that shit at a loss and buy this new shit, or brush up on the comprehensive rules because because now you're looking at at least a decade of "keeping things fresh"?
There has been a frightening trend in the past few years that they not only recycle mechanics (Kicker variants have become the equivalent of beating the dead horse; there have been more blatant attempts like Devotion or now Converge), but also reprint the same shit at a higher mana cost with the excuse "hurr durr, too good for Standard now" because they can't be assed to explore design space anymore. If mana dorks are now too powerful, then there's something about R&D that's throughly fucked.

It becomes less and less a matter of running out of ideas and more a matter of pure, unadulterated laziness.

"Devoid" mana (or short, our beloved D) would have been a way more interesting spin on the set if it had been introduced in BFZ already, not this nonsensical "card has colored mana cost with a colored frame, except it's coloress because reasons" bullshit.

[Cire]

I won't disagree that the game has at least two very different looks and feels that have to be reconciled -- don't get me started on "original function errata" -- and yes, I agree that it makes all Eternal formats (even Modern) less attractive when there's such a disparate execution between Magic 10/20 years ago, and today.

Inasmuch as "Spend only ___ mana on this spell" or something similar, there are something like 9 cards that have previously done this - Soul Burn, Atalya, Consume Spirit, and so on. If it were used to establish a precedent, though, it's almost always tied to X costs. I guess there are 9 spells in particular that they were really concerned about people splashing in their Elves decks, or something?

I mean really, typically when they want to limit the kind of mana you spend on a spell, they already have a way of doing that - by putting the requirement in the casting cost. There just was no real way to do that with colored mana without adding that line of text to every spell that they wanted to have with that quality. Really the quickest and most familiar way to communicate "Spend N mana of Y color on this spell" is to just cost it appropriately. So D lets you do that, and it doesn't even break anything in the process.

Were you guys who dislike this change to colorless mana production this upset with the creature type overhaul or the introduction of the Flash keyword? This is kind of exactly that, only it's with colorless mana. If it even goes that far; if it even extends beyond this block. This is really not that damn big a deal, and honestly IMHO I feel like it's one of the better conceived game changes they've done in a really long time. Beats the hell out of undoing the 6th Ed "damage on the stack" awesome sauce. MAN I WANT TO JUST PUT DAMAGE ON THE STACK ALWAYS AND FOREVER, FUCK

I feel like a broken record, and it's not your fault - but I really don't think anyone is upset with D in the mana costs or activation costs. I think we're all just baffled at the choice to also make it part of mana production. And by baffled I don't even mean that we don't get the visual significance of it, but baffled in the fact that they introduced this in the second set of a block when the first set had a whole mechanic that produced (1), when they could have introduced it in that set easily, for example by making scion tokens sac for D, and state that producing D = producing (1). Then in this set introduce D as a cost. . .

[GundamGuy]

Were you guys who dislike this change to colorless mana production this upset with the creature type overhaul or the introduction of the Flash keyword? This is kind of exactly that, only it's with colorless mana. If it even goes that far; if it even extends beyond this block. This is really not that damn big a deal, and honestly IMHO I feel like it's one of the better conceived game changes they've done in a really long time. Beats the hell out of undoing the 6th Ed "damage on the stack" awesome sauce. MAN I WANT TO JUST PUT DAMAGE ON THE STACK ALWAYS AND FOREVER, FUCK

The difference here is this is only a style difference. So of the examples listed the closest by far is keywording of a commonly used ability.

The creature type overhaul and damage on the stack / not on the stack / mana burn / no more mana burn, aren't just style differences, they have real rules function differences.

So IMO changing "You can cast this whenever you could cast an instant" to Flash to save space in the rules box makes sense. But done too much makes the barrier to entry to Magic too high...

Changing :1: to D just seems to be entirely stylistic. It doesn't even save space (in some cases like Ancient Tomb) it'll increase space.

I think it's a real posibility that Wizards would do this, it just seems way more pointless (and thus more questionable) then keywording IMO.

Also yes to be clear, D in the cost of a spell meaning you have to pay colorless is actually awesome and I am totally on board with the concept of that (if not now, at some point, becuase that's an awesome idea), I'm just perplexed by putting D on lands.

[Barook]

I do wonder if D becomes an evergreen or just a throwaway mechanic for the second set of a block (because that would be a damn shame).

What would be its share of the color pie, aside from producing the D with phallic-shaped objects? (Grim Monolith, Basalt Monolith and Unstable Obelisk say hi!)

[Admiral_Arzar]

I do wonder if D becomes an evergreen or just a throwaway mechanic for the second set of a block (because that would be a damn shame).

What would be its share of the color pie, aside from producing the D with phallic-shaped objects? (Grim Monolith, Basalt Monolith and Unstable Obelisk say hi!)

If you associate Grim Monolith with any kind of phallus I recommend medical attention immediately.

[Dice_Box]

Had to put that quote where it belonged. Bravo.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Had to put that quote where it belonged. Bravo.

There hasn't been enough quotable material around here lately :cry:

[Richard Cheese]

I won't disagree that the game has at least two very different looks and feels that have to be reconciled -- don't get me started on "original function errata" -- and yes, I agree that it makes all Eternal formats (even Modern) less attractive when there's such a disparate execution between Magic 10/20 years ago, and today.

Inasmuch as "Spend only ___ mana on this spell" or something similar, there are something like 9 cards that have previously done this - Soul Burn, Atalya, Consume Spirit, and so on. If it were used to establish a precedent, though, it's almost always tied to X costs. I guess there are 9 spells in particular that they were really concerned about people splashing in their Elves decks, or something?

I mean really, typically when they want to limit the kind of mana you spend on a spell, they already have a way of doing that - by putting the requirement in the casting cost. There just was no real way to do that with colored mana without adding that line of text to every spell that they wanted to have with that quality. Really the quickest and most familiar way to communicate "Spend N mana of Y color on this spell" is to just cost it appropriately. So D lets you do that, and it doesn't even break anything in the process.

Were you guys who dislike this change to colorless mana production this upset with the creature type overhaul or the introduction of the Flash keyword? This is kind of exactly that, only it's with colorless mana. If it even goes that far; if it even extends beyond this block. This is really not that damn big a deal, and honestly IMHO I feel like it's one of the better conceived game changes they've done in a really long time. Beats the hell out of undoing the 6th Ed "damage on the stack" awesome sauce. MAN I WANT TO JUST PUT DAMAGE ON THE STACK ALWAYS AND FOREVER, FUCK

I agree that it's way less clunky to handle the colorless requirement in the mana cost, and I don't actually dislike the idea. I'm actually more frustrated that it's likely going to be done in an extremely limited scope then totally abandoned until "Zendikar 3: the Legend of Emrakul's Gold". Maybe it won't be, but being the last set of the block and knowing that we're heading back to classic horror cliches in April does not give me high hopes.

I just think it's frustrating when they throw out something new like this and barely touch it before leaving it to rot in Eternal forever. To me that's just adding needless complexity to the game, even if taken one at a time nothing is really that complicated. Like, now we've got "702.80 - Retrace" for 12 fucking cards! Level Up, Devour, Annihilator, Totem Armor, and on and on...all this shit now has to exist in the rules and could potentially show up at your next eternal event. I would rather they go the route of Flash, Vigilance, or Deathtouch and just use the damn textbox on the card to flesh out new ideas before they become "canon". Remember Licids? A dozen of them all doing similar stuff, but no keyword necessary!

This new colorless mana is a bit of a different animal. Again I actually like the idea, I just hate that it feels like kind of a major paradigm shift is getting treated like yet another throwaway mechanic, if that makes any sense. I know it doesn't really functionally impact eternal at this point, but you'd think changing something as central to the game as the idea of colorless mana would come with a little more preparation/fanfare. Hell, at least when they fucked up the notion of enchantments they had the decency to print a whole shitty set around it.

[TsumiBand]

The difference here is this is only a style difference. So of the examples listed the closest by far is keywording of a commonly used ability.

The creature type overhaul and damage on the stack / not on the stack / mana burn / no more mana burn, aren't just style differences, they have real rules function differences.

So IMO changing "You can cast this whenever you could cast an instant" to Flash to save space in the rules box makes sense. But done too much makes the barrier to entry to Magic too high...

Changing :1: to D just seems to be entirely stylistic. It doesn't even save space (in some cases like Ancient Tomb) it'll increase space.

I think it's a real posibility that Wizards would do this, it just seems way more pointless (and thus more questionable) then keywording IMO.

Also yes to be clear, D in the cost of a spell meaning you have to pay colorless is actually awesome and I am totally on board with the concept of that (if not now, at some point, becuase that's an awesome idea), I'm just perplexed by putting D on lands.

Apart from the extra text thing you can't really force a spell to require a certain kind of mana without a mana symbol. It's their own fault for using the same symbol for generic and colorless for almost 25 years TBH.

I think if you're trying to compile a list of reasons explaining Why Would They Do This, it manages to knock out a couple of different birds with one stone - you get the people that want a 6th color appeased on a technicality while also making colorless mana work and look like colored mana. Yes, Ancient Tomb would technically use more card space but the same effect in any color would follow suit, and if colorless mana is to become a requirement of spells then it's just the most "built-in" way to do it. Let colorless == color 6, and you get to roll in every colorless land from way-back-when to today without literally making any old lands unplayable (hell, like I said with the painlands - if D spells are cool enough, some lands actually get slightly better because of this change). In a perfect world where changes can be retconned into the game without old things looking like shit, this is nothing but win.

I wonder if the move towards digital CCGs hasn't made it seem like this is a less disruptive idea than it actually is. You can errata a whole database of cards with a single query, or even just change the UI and leave the POD alone and just make it "look different", and since it's a video game this is fine because all of your cards are given equal treatment. Obviously a physical game isn't subject to this, though they've done it before - but yes, if one is married to the Olde Ways, it is definitely going to make things look wonky. Really, the further back in the game you go, the wonkier things get anyway. Their digital games entertain a tiny UI tweak, but instantly the change is reflected in the entire game. It's old bastards with old card frames that stand to be the sourest of pusses here.

Given their whole "you're adults, you guys figure it out" approach with the oldest formats, this is probably just another schism that they cannot be bothered to worry about. I mean, they have a setting with which to introduce something that honestly could/should have been sorted a long time ago -- it really is stupid to give D and generic mana requirements the same aesthetic yet work differently, it's only a byproduct of time and familiarity that convinces people otherwise -- so why not just fix the glitch and move on?

Really, Vintage and Legacy players should not care about this, for that fact, because it changes nothing except the way that spells-yet-to-be-printed will be paid for - it's just another anachronism to roll into all those which currently exist. I would, however, be a little bit concerned if I were heavily invested in Modern. Modern's newness gives it that "must keep shiny and nice-looking" appeal, but honestly Wizard's track record with keeping their Eternal formats fat and happy is not exactly fantastic. It's a bit like an Ubuntu release; you can count on about 5 years of support with any one LTS before you have to move to the latest version or just fall behind. Legacy is Ubuntu 10.04, for all intents and purposes; Modern is 12.04, right down to the Unity DE. You can't expect a company that tweaks its product in the ways WotC has already demonstrated they're keen on doing to maintain the same UX for two decades and counting; maybe not even 10 years, honestly.

So if I were a Modern player, looking at this change and the available card pool and the slowly accruing myriad differences between Mirrodin Standard all the way through Origins Standard, I'd start wondering if that format has fewer good days ahead than behind. I'm not even trying to be shitty about a format I don't play, just - look at what's been done, look at what's happening now; I feel like there's a clear life cycle to these Eternal formats. I wouldn't mind being wrong on this.


I agree that it's way less clunky to handle the colorless requirement in the mana cost, and I don't actually dislike the idea. I'm actually more frustrated that it's likely going to be done in an extremely limited scope then totally abandoned until "Zendikar 3: the Legend of Emrakul's Gold". Maybe it won't be, but being the last set of the block and knowing that we're heading back to classic horror cliches in April does not give me high hopes.

I just think it's frustrating when they throw out something new like this and barely touch it before leaving it to rot in Eternal forever. To me that's just adding needless complexity to the game, even if taken one at a time nothing is really that complicated. Like, now we've got "702.80 - Retrace" for 12 fucking cards! Level Up, Devour, Annihilator, Totem Armor, and on and on...all this shit now has to exist in the rules and could potentially show up at your next eternal event. I would rather they go the route of Flash, Vigilance, or Deathtouch and just use the damn textbox on the card to flesh out new ideas before they become "canon". Remember Licids? A dozen of them all doing similar stuff, but no keyword necessary!

This new colorless mana is a bit of a different animal. Again I actually like the idea, I just hate that it feels like kind of a major paradigm shift is getting treated like yet another throwaway mechanic, if that makes any sense. I know it doesn't really functionally impact eternal at this point, but you'd think changing something as central to the game as the idea of colorless mana would come with a little more preparation/fanfare. Hell, at least when they fucked up the notion of enchantments they had the decency to print a whole shitty set around it.

Yeah, I feel like you're not wrong. The best part about this thread is all the "not wrong" we can throw around and be pretty legitimate in our saying-so; it's not like we don't care if we piss each other off :D

The rules of Magic are a really ugly place. It's small wonder that nearly every card game that's come after Magic has drowned under the weight of its own complexity; or taken the opposite angle, had as FEW rules as possible and done quite well for itself. There's a ton of fodder for things that literally just do not matter anymore.

I know there's some WotC-approved boilerplate reason as to why there are so many keywords now, and whether or not it's a better world for it is a matter of debate. Sometimes they're pretty legit, and sometimes they're Recover. The emphasis on new players' learning curve is seemingly more and more a part of every decision that's made around the game. I could honestly see a new player trying to figure out why W pays for W, G pays for G, and 1 could pay for 1 but so could every other color while actually making 1 is kind of terrible because it rarely matters that mana is colorless, just that spells only require so much colored mana. Colorless mana is a bit pants, really.

I mean really, just the act of producing colorless mana is kind of a throwaway ability on a lot of lands; more often than not a land that only produces colorless has to be a-fucking-mazing in order to even consider it in a deck. At least now, there's some reason to look twice at half the colorless-only lands that have come out over the years, to see if there's anything there. It all depends on the actual spells we get back.

[Cire]

It all depends on the actual spells we get back.

Curious. . . . would we play something like this?

D
Creature - Eldrazi {R}
Devoid, Ingest
3/3

It would compare favorably to delver (no need to go through motions to make it flip, survives pyroclasm and other type spells, but can't fly, can't pitch to force and you need to run colorless lands).

[thecrav]

Curious. . . . would we play something like this?

D
Creature - Eldrazi {R}
Devoid, Ingest
3/3

It would compare favorably to delver (no need to go through motions to make it flip, survives pyroclasm and other type spells, but can't fly, can't pitch to force and you need to run colorless lands).

Not to go too far into the card creation thing....

The Venn Diagram of decks that want to play a high density of colorless-producing lands and decks that want to put Chalice on 1 into play is nearly a circle. However, D&T would probably like the idea of a 3/3 for 1 that can be cast off their 8 utility lands or their Aether Vial.

[Cire]

Not to go too far into the card creation thing....

The Venn Diagram of decks that want to play a high density of colorless-producing lands and decks that want to put Chalice on 1 into play is nearly a circle. However, D&T would probably like the idea of a 3/3 for 1 that can be cast off their 8 utility lands or their Aether Vial.

Fair enough - aka we might see an increase in chalice decks if any good D cards are printed

[Barook]

Not to go too far into the card creation thing....

The Venn Diagram of decks that want to play a high density of colorless-producing lands and decks that want to put Chalice on 1 into play is nearly a circle. However, D&T would probably like the idea of a 3/3 for 1 that can be cast off their 8 utility lands or their Aether Vial.
Make it uncounterable and it works with Chalice decks and against blue decks. I doubt D&T would run a vanilla beater without any utility, evasion or built-in protection, though.


Fair enough - aka we might see an increase in chalice decks if any good D cards are printed
While the potential is there, I doubt we're going to see any Legacy-playable D cards if it's a set-only throwaway mechanic. Some D hatebears similiar to Phyrexian Revoker (or other prison artifacts) would be a great start.

[Lemnear]

Curious. . . . would we play something like this?

D
Creature - Eldrazi {R}
Devoid, Ingest
3/3

It would compare favorably to delver (no need to go through motions to make it flip, survives pyroclasm and other type spells, but can't fly, can't pitch to force and you need to run colorless lands).

Oh you have to run Wastelands and/or Ports and/or other stuff in your tempo-deck or Death&Taxes! What a hassle /s

[frafen]

Oh you have to run at least 14 colorless sources between Wastelands, Ports/other stuff and aether vial in your tempo-deck or Death&Taxes! What a hassle /s Fixed. Death and Taxes could play it with its current manabase but I don't think that it wants a wild nacatl.

[Darkenslight]

I'm going with D mana, because immature puns ("All aboard the D train! Whoo Whoo!") and deck naming potential ("Drug Prison and BUD ComBRO") do it for me. :tongue:.

Also I made this complaint before - but if <> is really just colorless mana, in the last block they made a whole mechanic and tokens (the scions!) that could have just sacrificed their lives for the D (heh), but now must be errated. That is so annoying.

Maybe, with the exception of Wastes, where that mana is explicit, all colorless mana is considered D mana.

[Lemnear]

Maybe, with the exception of Wastes, where that mana is explicit, all colorless mana is considered D mana.

Point is: WotC can't even fucking stay consistant in their design within a single two-expansion-block, not to talk about their own plane of Zendikar! There is no fucking reason to mess with the Eldrazi/Scion/Colorless subtopic by adding a new form/distinction of mana after 25 years

[Echelon]

Point is: WotC can't even fucking stay consistant in their design within a single two-expansion-block, not to talk about their own plane of Zendikar! There is no fucking reason to mess with the Eldrazi/Scion/Colorless subtopic by adding a new form/distinction of mana after 25 years

As it's looking it's just a rehash of snow mana (I'm probably not the first one to say this). They could just make it snow on Zendikar. Might have been fun with Scrying Sheets. I guess they're running out of ideas. Just like renaming just about everything to a "new" keyword. And then using that keyword for just 1 block. And, due to the scarcity of that keyword, having to put the reminder text under every instance of the keyword, making the keyword itself utterly obsolete.

Anywho, I'm curious to see if we get anything playable. If counter-Kozi is actually happening, I'm getting back on my Summoner's Egg Nic Fit horse. praetor. eldrazi. thing.

[Hopo]

While the game evolves, the bitching never changes.

[Whitefaces]

While the game evolves, the bitching never changes.

My thoughts exactly.

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

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

<> is obviously just kicker on land.

[Lemnear]

My thoughts exactly.

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

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

<> is obviously just kicker on land.

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

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

[Whitefaces]

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

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

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

[Dice_Box]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?

[Barook]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?
I think it has potential to do cool things, but I fear it's going to be another waste of unused design space.

[Lemnear]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?

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

[TsumiBand]

Am I the only one that is excited over this?

I rather like it, on the whole.

[Dice_Box]

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

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

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

[GundamGuy]

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

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

IMO if it's just a colorless basic, it's pretty underpowered since I can just play a deck full of lands that come into play untapped and have Tap: Add :1: (or D) plus other abilities. Other then the risk of Blood Moon (wizards says they don't test for older formats...) why not?

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

[Cire]

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

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

[Barook]

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

[Cire]

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

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

[Dice_Box]

Wouldn't D artifacts be pretty much the same as colored artifacts as far as gameplay is concerned? I wouldn't be worried too much about them going into that direction.
Yes, but you would have to build around them as you go. If they don't print Fetches for Wastes, then the fun is really on. Because at that point you can make a card desirable and force people to actually build mana bases to support it.

[TsumiBand]

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

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

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

[jrsthethird]

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

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

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

[TheG]

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

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

[jrsthethird]

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

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


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

OH GOD NO.

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

Not to mention "the current colorless = no color = generic mana" you state is tautologically incorrect. Colorless mana and generic mana are defined differently in the rules, so there is no way they are currently equivalent. What is confusing you is the fact that :1: can stand for colorless or generic mana:

In costs, :1: is generic mana; i.e. mana of any color (or colorless) can be spent to pay it.
In mana abilities, :1: is colorless mana; i.e. mana that can only be spent to pay generic mana costs (but not colored).

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

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

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

[Blastoderm]

Edit: deleted. Discussed already.

[TsumiBand]

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

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

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

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

[GundamGuy]

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


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

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

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



In costs, :1: is generic mana; i.e. mana of any color (or colorless) can be spent to pay it.
In mana abilities, :1: is colorless mana; i.e. mana that can only be spent to pay generic mana costs (but not colored).

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


There was alwasy a difference between colorless and generic mana and people for the most part have understood that for over 20 years. When asked to explain it people might use the wrong words but people have totally been able to undertand that :2: in a mana ability means two colorless mana, and :2: in the cost of a spell or ability means two generic mana.

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

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

[death]

Also seems like a great time to re-print Wasteland

https://thecubemiser.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/maro-troll.jpg?w=939&h=471

[TsumiBand]

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

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

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

It isn't anything like paying for the generic part of a spell, it's like splashing a color that you can't use the 10 Good Fetches to find.

It's like playing a RW deck and having 4-8 red sources that you can only draw. What's more, since it's Wasteland (sigh, that's going to be a PITA) and Port we're talking about, let's assume your 4-8 mana sources aren't just tapping for mana but affecting the board state. Now obviously you always make The Best Play and do what's best at the time but you'll always have that fork in your decision making which your mana base will hemp up from time to time. And if you ever do sack your "Imaginary Wasteland that taps for Red instead of colorless" you now have Red spells you may not be efficiently casting. I think this is majorly different from the current stat quo when it comes to sacking a Wasteland; you don't use that Waste expressly to cast any spell in your deck, so of course you don't really miss it if you can't tap anymore.

Has it really been that long since anyone's played a manabase without fetchlands? :(

[GundamGuy]

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



OH GOD NO.

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

Not to mention "the current colorless = no color = generic mana" you state is tautologically incorrect. Colorless mana and generic mana are defined differently in the rules, so there is no way they are currently equivalent. What is confusing you is the fact that :1: can stand for colorless or generic mana:

In costs, :1: is generic mana; i.e. mana of any color (or colorless) can be spent to pay it.
In mana abilities, :1: is colorless mana; i.e. mana that can only be spent to pay generic mana costs (but not colored).

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

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

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


It isn't anything like paying for the generic part of a spell, it's like splashing a color that you can't use the 10 Good Fetches to find.

It's like playing a RW deck and having 4-8 red sources that you can only draw. What's more, since it's Wasteland (sigh, that's going to be a PITA) and Port we're talking about, let's assume your 4-8 mana sources aren't just tapping for mana but affecting the board state. Now obviously you always make The Best Play and do what's best at the time but you'll always have that fork in your decision making which your mana base will hemp up from time to time. And if you ever do sack your "Imaginary Wasteland that taps for Red instead of colorless" you now have Red spells you may not be efficiently casting. I think this is majorly different from the current stat quo when it comes to sacking a Wasteland; you don't use that Waste expressly to cast any spell in your deck, so of course you don't really miss it if you can't tap anymore.

Has it really been that long since anyone's played a manabase without fetchlands? :(

I think the confusion here is that I suggested Wasteland and Port as examples, I'm not suggesting you only play Wasteland and Port if you have a significant amount of Colorless CMC cards in your deck. I am suggesting that there are a ton of utility lands that tap for colorless and have additional abilities that come into play untapped.

I was also thinking more along the lines of Standard and Modern where this is likely to make a bigger impact anyway. Yes Wasteland and Port aren't modern / standard legal, but there are plenty of utility lands that are.

But if we are talking splashing "Colorless" for like one card... I'm not sure how big of a deal this really becomes....

I'm not sure we've seen anything yet to prove that this is actually going to turn out to be a big thing and have more then a handful of relevant cards.

Talking only Standard for a moment, if you were building the "Colorless Eldrazi" deck why not start with the Blighted Lands? Why start with Wastes?

[Begle1]

Terramorphic Expanse/ Evolving Wilds, Rampant Growth and family, Ghost Quarter/ Path to Exile/ Wave of Vitriol, and Blood Moon/ Wasteland (ironically) are some of the reasons why Wastes should exist and will be played in at least some capacity.

[GundamGuy]

Terramorphic Expanse/ Evolving Wilds, Rampant Growth and family, Ghost Quarter/ Path to Exile/ Wave of Vitriol, and Blood Moon/ Wasteland (ironically) are some of the reasons why Wastes should exist and will be played in at least some capacity.

Yes, and just like other basics it'll be a 1 or 2 of in decklist. :wink:

[jrsthethird]

Talking only Standard for a moment, if you were building the "Colorless Eldrazi" deck why not start with the Blighted Lands? Why start with Wastes?

Right now, that's a given. Unless there's some sort of interaction with only basic lands, then there's no need to run the basic in Standard. If they reprint Path or something in that vein, then each deck will want to run a few so they can get the full reparations for their creature.

I don't think Standard is the target format for Wastes, for the reason you said. Not only Blighted Lands, but the obvious Eldrazi ones (Shrine, Sanctum), as well as pain lands and goofy new stuff like Mirrorpool. I think it's more relevant for:

Limited, where Wastes are drafted as common. There's no guarantee you'll be able to cast your new Kozilek if you don't draft at least 2 colorless mana sources.
Modern/Legacy (Ghost Quarter/Path/Veteran Explorer targets for colorless decks)
EDH (same interactions as above; additionally colorless manabases are terrible because they're all one-ofs. Why should anyone be forced to run Bant Panorama in a colorless deck?

[Ace/Homebrew]

I think it's more relevant for Limited, where Wastes are drafted as common. There's no guarantee you'll be able to cast your new Kozilek if you don't draft at least 2 colorless mana sources.
This is just speculation right? I was under the impression Wastes (as a basic land) would be made available like the other basic lands. If you draft heavily in <>, you pick up a bunch of Wastes from the store stack while building your pile.

[death]

On the bottom left of the card next to the card number it says "C" and not "L" which stands for basic land.

[jrsthethird]

This is just speculation right? I was under the impression Wastes (as a basic land) would be made available like the other basic lands. If you draft heavily in <>, you pick up a bunch of Wastes from the store stack while building your pile.

Speculation based on the rarity listed on the card.

[GundamGuy]

Right now, that's a given. Unless there's some sort of interaction with only basic lands, then there's no need to run the basic in Standard. If they reprint Path or something in that vein, then each deck will want to run a few so they can get the full reparations for their creature.

I don't think Standard is the target format for Wastes, for the reason you said. Not only Blighted Lands, but the obvious Eldrazi ones (Shrine, Sanctum), as well as pain lands and goofy new stuff like Mirrorpool. I think it's more relevant for:

Limited, where Wastes are drafted as common. There's no guarantee you'll be able to cast your new Kozilek if you don't draft at least 2 colorless mana sources.
Modern/Legacy (Ghost Quarter/Path/Veteran Explorer targets for colorless decks)
EDH (same interactions as above; additionally colorless manabases are terrible because they're all one-ofs. Why should anyone be forced to run Bant Panorama in a colorless deck?

I agree with a lot of this.

I think the case with Limited is the strongest.

Wizards says they don't design cards with Eternal Formats in mind (:wink:) and even then I also don't think Waste as a target for "Colorless Decks" is really that realistic unless we get a lot of good D-Cards (I am expecting 0-2 Legacy Playables, 1-3 Modern Playables and would be suprised if we get more then that.)

I'm wondering if this is just the best fake job we've ever seen... since the Basic Land is common and not an L.

Also wondering if I have a Deck Registration Error and need to add basics to get to the correct number of cards can I add Wastes to my deck? XD (Seems like yes.)

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Another unofficial spoiler:

http://i.imgur.com/pRXvVUn.jpg


Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim
WB
Legendary Creature - Kor Cleric

Deathtouch

1, Sacrifice another creature: You gain life equal to the sacrificed creature's toughness.

1WB, Sacrifice another creature: Exile target nonland permanent. Activate this ability only if you have 10 more life than your starting life total.

2/3

Interesting enough, but certainly not Legacy playable even as a 2/3 Deathtouch for two mana (would have been great years ago). Wizards is really pushing a WB lifegain deck in Standard though.

[GundamGuy]

Another unofficial spoiler:

http://i.imgur.com/pRXvVUn.jpg



Interesting enough, but certainly not Legacy playable even as a 2/3 Deathtouch for two mana (would have been great years ago). Wizards is really pushing a WB lifegain deck in Standard though.

Interesting to see them do more with Starting Life + X abilities. It is certainly not a clear cut legacy playable but I am not sure that I would entirely write it off as being unplayable in legacy, because it might see some fringe play.

How good is deathtouch on a ground pounder in legacy?

[Barook]

Interesting to see them do more with Starting Life + X abilities. It is certainly not a clear cut legacy playable but I am not sure that I would entirely write it off as being unplayable in legacy, because it might see some fringe play.

How good is deathtouch on a ground pounder in legacy?
Might be cool in Soul Sisters, but even with this and Karlov as new toys to play with, I can't see it becoming a competitive deck in Legacy.

Might be cool for the Modern version splashing black, though.

[rufus]

Might be cool in Soul Sisters, ...

It's cute with Edgewalker cleric tribal too. Still not good enough.

[Barook]

It's cute with Edgewalker cleric tribal too. Still not good enough.
For what it's worth, she replaces the sac outlet (like Worthy Cause or similiar lands) for the infinite life combo if that is your cup of tea.

[Cire]

Cire's Crappy Combo Corner (CCCC)

Daru Spiritualist + Edgewalker+ Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim + Shaman en-Kor/Nomads en-Kor = Infinite Life for 3BW(1/W) :tongue: (Edgewalker only makes the combo 1 colorless cheaper, and only if you aren't casting Nomads. . . . so at the cheapest - Spiritualist + Nomads + Pilgrim is 2WWWB is still six.)

[ironclad8690]

When was the last time anyone even played Life.dec? It used to be one of my favorites because I got to play Doran.

[Blastoderm]

When was the last time anyone even played Life.dec? It used to be one of my favorites because I got to play Doran.

Not since Emrakul was printed.

[Jon]

When was the last time anyone even played Life.dec? It used to be one of my favorites because I got to play Doran.

Last Thursday at our locals .


I have fat fingers and I am posting from my iPhone.

[jrsthethird]

Last Thursday at our locals .


I have fat fingers and I am posting from my iPhone.

Meta choice against Burn?

[nedleeds]

When was the last time anyone even played Life.dec? It used to be one of my favorites because I got to play Doran.

Guilty as charged.


https://youtu.be/tEhwtrFN_6c?t=959

[ironclad8690]

Hahaha awesome, even with Doran on the battlefield!

I actually used to play Emrakul in Life as a way to end the game with some inevitability (we were working with Eternal Dragon back then) You did have to tick your vial to 15 (for those sticklers that didn't concede).

[nedleeds]

He's a decent wish target as a finisher in life.dec you can create scenarios with Karakas where you can protect him, and with enough vials on 3 it's hard to stop. This new cleric is the only cavernable sac outlet though, which is pretty sweet. All outlets were either lands or spells previously. The other big thing is once you establish 23,453,754,246,345,674,224,887,345,346 life you can still lose to Jace the Derp Sculptor -- this removes it in a cavern friendly way.

[Barook]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVlSv3YVEAAzl6s.jpg

If this is real, then it confirms that :1: is going to replaced by <> as a mana symbol for lands.

Also, a new RG legend was probably leaked:

Mina and Denn :2::r::g:
Legendary Creature - Elf Ally
You may play an additional land during each of your turns.
:r::g:, Return a land you control to its owner's hand: Target creature gains trample until end of turn.
4/4

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Looks like we're about to see widespread errata. Perhaps the largest number of Oracle text changes since the Great Creature Type Update. Prepare for Sol Ring to be Tap: Add <><> to your mana pool.

No idea why they waited until the second set of a block to institute this sweeping change. Lands like Sanctum of Ugin and Shrine of the Forsaken Gods are going to look silly, as are Eldrazi Scions from BFZ, when played side-by-side with Oath cards with the new template.

And while the filterlands were widely expected as Expeditions in Oath, it remains to be seen what will be the "big ticket" lands to help sell the set. Shadowmoor filters pretty much top out at 30 dollars and they see almost zero competitive play, unlike fetches and shocks; they aren't going to drive frenzied pack sales in the way the BFZ Expeditions did.

Wasteland, perhaps?

[Mr.C]

Looks like we're about to see widespread errata. Perhaps the largest number of Oracle text changes since the Great Creature Type Update. Prepare for Sol Ring to be Tap: Add <><> to your mana pool.

No idea why they waited until the second set of a block to institute this sweeping change. Lands like Sanctum of Ugin and Shrine of the Forsaken Gods are going to look silly, as are Eldrazi Scions from BFZ, when played side-by-side with Oath cards with the new template.

And while the filterlands were widely expected as Expeditions in Oath, it remains to be seen what will be the "big ticket" lands to help sell the set. Shadowmoor filters pretty much top out at 30 dollars and they see almost zero competitive play, unlike fetches and shocks; they aren't going to drive frenzied pack sales in the way the BFZ Expeditions did.

Wasteland, perhaps?

Plateau. Just for shits and giggles.

[jrsthethird]

Thank god. All those dumb arguments are settled now.

[Dice_Box]

Looks like we're about to see widespread errata. Perhaps the largest number of Oracle text changes since the Great Creature Type Update. Prepare for Sol Ring to be Tap: Add <><> to your mana pool.

No idea why they waited until the second set of a block to institute this sweeping change. Lands like Sanctum of Ugin and Shrine of the Forsaken Gods are going to look silly, as are Eldrazi Scions from BFZ, when played side-by-side with Oath cards with the new template.

And while the filterlands were widely expected as Expeditions in Oath, it remains to be seen what will be the "big ticket" lands to help sell the set. Shadowmoor filters pretty much top out at 30 dollars and they see almost zero competitive play, unlike fetches and shocks; they aren't going to drive frenzied pack sales in the way the BFZ Expeditions did.

Wasteland, perhaps?
Zendikar man Lands.

That land, don't like the black line around the art.

[Sloshthedark]

Thank god. All those dumb arguments are settled now.

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) = <><><><><>)

[Aggro_zombies]

Zendikar man Lands.
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.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

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.

Nah there gonna be plenty wastes! Think of all the intro decks and fatpacks. Also its not like snowcoverd lands, you dont need 5 different one. Also, if I understand it correcty, they only upside they have is the basicland type. In all other aspects they are strictly worse then all other utility colorless (producing) lands. So yup you dont die to ruination in edh but thats all...