[OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrsthethird

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

This is why this is such a key change.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrsthethird

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comp Rules

202. Mana Cost and Color

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

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

---

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

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

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

---

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

?
Artifact
Spells cost D more to cast.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

Unfortunately you can't have opinions about facts. :)

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cire

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

?
Artifact
Spells cost D more to cast.

...

---

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

A more sane version would be:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

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



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

---

This is my interpertation as well.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cire

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

---

Do artifacts currently have a mechanical identity?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

Do artifacts currently have a mechanical identity?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cire

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

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

---

The Cavern template actually works just fine for D creatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

The Cavern template actually works just fine for D creatures.

---

No it doesn't:

Cavern will read:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cire

No it doesn't:
...

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cire

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

---

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

Imagine the following Hypotheical Creature Card.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GundamGuy

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

---

Pale Moon suddenly becomes tier 1 shit.