[OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers thread

[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 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 . 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 on the card, which would look stupid af on a full art land.

A full-art land with 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 ()

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 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 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 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/mag...tg/daily/mm/25

Just look how FUCKING UGLY this mockup is:



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/mag...tg/daily/mm/25

Just look how FUCKING UGLY this mockup is:

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 , that would be hilarious.

[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 , that would be hilarious.

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 , that would be hilarious.

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.