No, that's how it works and how you make it backwards compatible with a billion years of MTG design. Otherwise, it just becomes silo'd like Snow mana is.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Magic: the Gathering - Battle for Zendikar |OT| Lands matter (but nothing else does)
- Thread starter SigmasonicX
- Start date
- Status
charlequin
Banned
This would play horribly with the rest of the block. As an "only colorless mana" symbol it plays well with the blighted lands, the Scions, and the other Eldrazi mana producers; as its own special symbol it plays well with nothing and will never be used.
divisionbyzorro
Member
There is no way they are rewriting every card in Magic history that produces colorless mana. That would be jump-the-shark levels of insane.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
It really is just a sixth color then. Sol Ring might just as well say T: Add UU to your mana pool, letting you pay for two colorless or for any spells that require blue
SigmasonicX
Member
Or that could be why it's only in a small set in the first place.
MaRo has mentioned on Blogatog that special mana like snow mana is something they are interested in, though it has less design space than he originally imagined.
charlequin
Banned
Unrelated to this, but inspired by a glance at Twitter: man, #MTGOGW looks way too much like #MGTOW, lol.
They literally did this already when they made "add {2}" mean "add colorless" back in Onslaught.
They literally did this already when they made "add {2}" mean "add colorless" back in Onslaught.
Just the oracle text.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Except that's exactly what it is.
charlequin
Banned
If it's a unique type of mana it needs much more support than if it's colorless mana. The non-parasitic version works with hundreds of ways that already exist to generate colorless mana; the parasitic version requires this new type of basic land so it's way, way harder to make it play well with only a few cards using the mechanic. The former is much easier to have in one small set; the latter really requires a whole block of support.
But you have pre-existing lands that are compatible w/ this stuff. (Cloudpost, City of Traitors, Ancient Tomb.) Snow stuff is restricted to Snow Lands. It's much more flexible.
Them being able to be used for edh is my primary reason for wanting them lol.
I mean meant for standard/modern ect.
If the claim that <> only taps for <>, then I think it makes more sense to see play in those formats.
charlequin
Banned
BTW, obviously this isn't definitive, but Google Images hasn't ever seen any of these three illustrations before, and at least in the case of the hill-of-bismuth I can't find any search terms that produce anything even remotely close.
divisionbyzorro
Member
I get what you're saying. I don't think that's what they're doing.
1) They did this second set. There would be cards in the same block that would have different Oracle text than printed text. No way.
2) The only way that <> is relevant is if there are <> costs. You can implement <> costs with pre existing cards without having to re-Oracle all of history. Observe:
Random Colorless Dude 4<><>
Creature - Bloke
(<> can only be paid for with colorless mana)
When ~ enters the battlefield, do a thing
5/5
If you are trying to make a mechanic that locks you specifically into colorless mana, you can do it without needing to change how other cards currently add mana to your pool. It's much cleaner that way. That's why I don't believe they're doing what you're saying.
3) EDIT: plane-specific colorless mana fits right in with the flavor of devoid. These are lands that used to produced colored mana that can't do so anymore because the Eldrazi sucked them dry. They don't produce (1); they produce weird Eldrazi colorless mana.
charlequin
Banned
This is normally way -- like, way -- too early for fairly important cards from an upcoming set to casually leak out, but the exact set of three cards is also exactly the sort of thing you'd put together to build hype for the next set, rather than feeling like three random cards. I wonder if this is an intended early spoiler for the website or something that leaked a little bit early, instead of random cards that leaked super early.
EDIT: As long as I'm making kirblar posts, I would note that foil full-art Wastes are gonna be hella pricey in the long run, so stock up!
EDIT: As long as I'm making kirblar posts, I would note that foil full-art Wastes are gonna be hella pricey in the long run, so stock up!
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I mean, discussion of <> mana aside, how nuts is this land?
6 mana for a clone token on a land seems bonkers in Limited.
shrapnelmagnet
Member
Put me in camp "I think <> can be paid for with any mana that is Colourless".
It seems a little crazy to not have this be the case, but who knows.
It seems a little crazy to not have this be the case, but who knows.
These are definitely day 1 cards.
charlequin
Banned
Oh yeah, it'll be redickydick in limited for sure. This is also one of those cards that'll be a bit pricey purely on the basis of being a goes-in-any-deck Commander staple.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Someone on Reddit pointed out that "Wastes" is marked as a common, not as a basic. So you'll have to draft them if you want them in your draft deck. That'll be weird.
This is primarily why I'm in the colorless can be used for <> camp.
More siege rhinos!
SigmasonicX
Member
It was the same with Snow Covered Lands in Coldsnap, wasn't it?
divisionbyzorro
Member
charlequin
Banned
Oh wait, I just realized something else.
In the past, you couldn't do a theme like this very easily in a small set because you just couldn't get enough cards in draft to make it work.
Now, though, draft is gonna be 2xOGW and 1xBFZ, so it's much, much easier for a subtheme that's OGW-specific to be supported.
In the past, you couldn't do a theme like this very easily in a small set because you just couldn't get enough cards in draft to make it work.
Now, though, draft is gonna be 2xOGW and 1xBFZ, so it's much, much easier for a subtheme that's OGW-specific to be supported.
Yeah. The size of the set is adjusted a bit to account for it, so it is somewhere like a "medium" set.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The comp rules say you can have any number of "basic lands" provided by the tournament operator?
Guessing that will change to "Forrest, Island, Mountain, Plains or Swamps" in the update when the set hits
Any mathematicians want to take a crack at how many of these will show up in the average draft? We know the set has 70 commons, but we don't know how many different versions of the card there will be. I'm guessing 4.
shrapnelmagnet
Member
According to the ruling on Snow lands:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=2742
"God's Beard!"
Member
So basically <> is 'colorless only'?
So adding <> to your mana pool is the same as adding 1, but mana costs with <> in them can only be paid with colorless?
If you have to draft wastes/blighted lands to get cards that produce exactly colorless, is it feasible to have a bunch of spells at common with <> in their mana cost?
So adding <> to your mana pool is the same as adding 1, but mana costs with <> in them can only be paid with colorless?
If you have to draft wastes/blighted lands to get cards that produce exactly colorless, is it feasible to have a bunch of spells at common with <> in their mana cost?
shrapnelmagnet
Member
[QUOTE="God's Beard!";185879078]So basically <> is 'colorless only'?
So adding <> to your mana pool is the same as adding 1, but mana costs with <> in them can only be paid with colorless?
If you have to draft wastes/blighted lands to get cards that produce exactly colorless, is it feasible to have a bunch of spells at common with <> in their mana cost?[/QUOTE]
That's how I would understand it, but who knows. I could see that NOT being correct, though... Sorta.
For the record, and no one asked but still, my fave snow land is the Ice Age plains
So adding <> to your mana pool is the same as adding 1, but mana costs with <> in them can only be paid with colorless?
If you have to draft wastes/blighted lands to get cards that produce exactly colorless, is it feasible to have a bunch of spells at common with <> in their mana cost?[/QUOTE]
That's how I would understand it, but who knows. I could see that NOT being correct, though... Sorta.
For the record, and no one asked but still, my fave snow land is the Ice Age plains
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
[QUOTE="God's Beard!";185879078]So basically <> is 'colorless only'?
So adding <> to your mana pool is the same as adding 1, but mana costs with <> in them can only be paid with colorless?
If you have to draft wastes/blighted lands to get cards that produce exactly colorless, is it feasible to have a bunch of spells at common with <> in their mana cost?[/QUOTE]
I think it's just snow land and snow mana.
So adding <> to your mana pool is the same as adding 1, but mana costs with <> in them can only be paid with colorless?
If you have to draft wastes/blighted lands to get cards that produce exactly colorless, is it feasible to have a bunch of spells at common with <> in their mana cost?[/QUOTE]
I think it's just snow land and snow mana.
I'm really excited to see constructed cards with <> costs- it's basically free to play 3-4 colors right now, so I hope there are some cards with real incentive to play non color producing lands
Like, is <><> Counter Target Spell a printable card? The Apocalypse painlands are the only thing in standard that make me think it might be too good
Like, is <><> Counter Target Spell a printable card? The Apocalypse painlands are the only thing in standard that make me think it might be too good
ChazAshley
CharAznable's second cousin
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/126480135723/since-you-were-in-charge-of-the-un-sets-and-each
Dunno if this has been posted yet but confirmation that the mirrorland is real?
Dunno if this has been posted yet but confirmation that the mirrorland is real?
divisionbyzorro
Member
I just still can't buy that <> would just be a synonym for (1) when on a {T} ability, but mean something different as a cost.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I think its just snowland for eldrazi and distortion mana just gives you stronger cards for the cost.
I guess it could be like <> is either <> or (2) or something too. I dunno, just being (1) in visual form seems unlikely given there's a land that produces <>.
I guess it could be like <> is either <> or (2) or something too. I dunno, just being (1) in visual form seems unlikely given there's a land that produces <>.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Huh. Totally unexpected direction. I like anything that shakes up the status quo. Interested to see how this plays out.
shrapnelmagnet
Member
How long do you think it will be before we "know" either the legitimacy or the mechanic / rules?
charlequin
Banned
Pre-release is January 16th, so previews will start three weeks earlier on December 28th. Most sets typically get a limited preview of some type about a month out from the start of previews (Fate Reforged was released around the same time in January, and it actually saw its first spoilers on November 1st at PAX Australia) so... probably within the next two weeks.
World Magic Cup starts December 11th, and it's the last major event of the year. They will probably have some sort of teaser.
Assuming the Commander rules guys don't rule cards with that symbol specifically as having a colorless exclusive identity.
- Status