Printable View
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).
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican Zombie Legend
Thank god. All those dumb arguments are settled now.
Zendikar man Lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican Zombie Legend
That land, don't like the black line around the art.
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) = <><><><><>)Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
Its a basic land type... There will probably be tons. I doubt they would restict the print run on something like this. Consider snow covered lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
Because it needed to happen sooner or later. Doesn't actually change anything; we still know what Ancient Tomb does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloshthedark
Too confusing for new players:Quote:
when you can simply define <> on the casting cost of the new cards like specifically colorless
"My spell costs :1:<>, my Reliquary Tower taps for :1:. Where do I get the <> from?"
"You can use the tower for <>. The :1: in the cost is any mana. The <> means colorless, which is what Tower makes."
"So why doesn't the Tower say <>?"
"We're too lazy to change some old cards."
Pure speculation.Quote:
(theres gonna be only few anyway)?
Last time I checked, Soulbright Flamekin still makes :r::r::r::r::r::r::r::r:, which is totally understandable. I don't see your point.Quote:
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) = <><><><><>)
As we discussed this is the best possible outcome for D mana. . . the only thing we can complain about is how ridiculous it is that they implemented this in the second block of a set, especially when the first block had so many D producing lands and token.
Anyway I look forward to playing DRUG Prison and BUD ComBRO. :tongue:
I agree that hoarding Wastes from Oath is a good strategy from a value perspective. But I disagree that they will be unique to this set. Wizards purposefully chose a generic name so it could be printed in any and all sets/products where a colorless basic makes sense. The reason Wastes from this set will hold value is because they are full-art. I believe THAT aspect of the card will be unique to the Zendikar blocks. In a year or two full-art foil Wastes will go for the same price as full-art foil lands from the original ZEN block.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
it changes a lot visually, AGAIN, am I the only one who would prefer to have compact visual style?Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
No way, it's super easy, it's the same like asking what's X? today, <> = 1 has to be colorless... that's all, it's like phyrexian mana, isn't much of a complication, it's like adding another keyword mechanic which will be soon forgoten, having 2 symbols for the same in the most "entry" level - draft, standard, whatever is the definition of confusing
where do you get it? - from colorless land, tap to add number instead of pictures... since 199x
number of card released doesn't change anything, it's compatible throught the game like the split or phyrexian mana cost expands the posibilities, <> restricts them
it's odd to have a disagreement here =)
i'm with you Martin. WotC is going to change thousands of colorless mana-producing cards from :1: into <>, just to make a point about a dozen of cards having <> in the cost rather than printing a rulestext on the card that a certain amount of mana has to be payed with explicitely colorless mana rather than generic
Edit: Not that anyone minds, but the idea to differ between generic and colorless after 20 years just for a suspecible dozen of cards in this set is ridiculous
It would be nice if wizard will continually use D mana in the future, and D is not contained to this one block.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
My worry is that D is thematically tied to Eldrazi, so we will only get D when Eldrazi are around. Hopefully, though they reflavor D for each set.
So if dominaria, D will appear as a desert. In new phrexia, D appears as a compleation lab? In Ravnica D appears as trash heap. In Theros D appears as. . . a desert again. . . etc. . and so on.
I'm in this camp as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I also don't buy the "Too Confusing for new Players argument." New players managed to understand the differnce between colorless mana and generic mana just fine till now.
If we are going to assume that new players don't understand the rules and would wonder what produces D mana, why not assume they will now be confused about what lands tap for generic mana? Since that is a mana symbol that doesn't appear on any lands now... (not that it worked that way anyway... but we are assuming they don't undersand the rules right?)
Bravo to wizards for introducing cards that you must use colorless mana to cast... the rest though is Wizards "solving" problems that didn't need to be solved.
IKR, every time I read Seething Song I just add a random amount of :r: to my mana pool because I can't be bothered to count all those non-Blue mana symbols.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloshthedark
There is literally nothing bad about this change, especially if you "lived through" the Grand Creature Type Update. I mean I miss Lords and Ships too; the RealFeel is -emo, but I still get out of bed in the morning.
The only reason to fuss is that you've grown accustomed to a certain convention -- that's understandable, but really just don't make this a bigger deal than it actually is. It actually makes a bunch of older cards a little more interesting and if we see more D cards in the future could actually lead to some of the older lands getting a second look. More playable cards = more good, I thought that's why people liked Eternal formats, right?
They'll probably also show up in fat packs, precons, event decks, etc., and be shipped to stores in bulk for use in drafts/sealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by apple713