Since that doesn't make sense, it makes sense that <> only pays for <> while 1 pays for 1 or <>.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
Printable View
Since that doesn't make sense, it makes sense that <> only pays for <> while 1 pays for 1 or <>.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
This makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering Prairie Stream just happened a month ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Octopusman
Again. . . . I totally get <> as a cost. But producing <> makes no sense unless <> is treated differently than producing generic mana.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
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)!Quote:
Originally Posted by Octopusman
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
Would that totally shock you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
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:
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Octopusman
Part of the issue - I think - is the desire to have basic lands for colorless commander decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
There are 20 more Expedition's in Oath. I was wondering what they would be. This seems like a likely answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
Well, <> can be :1: while :1: is not <>, that's not really too complex. Maybe it's just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamGuy
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.
That already happened a long, long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamGuy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
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)_/¯.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamGuy
I read your post and thought of something completely different. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Octopusman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
Doubtful. Since Wastes doesn't have a land type, this would be very odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
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 <>.
My bet:
<> pays for <> or 1
1 generic mana does not pay for <>
Snow mana all over
So we would have 5 special foily lands that could tap for either <> OR their color. That seems...really lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
It's worth noting that :1: on the effect side already means something different than :1: on the cost side.Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamGuy
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.Quote:
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.