charlequin
Banned
That'd be pretty torturous.
-
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
That'd be pretty torturous.
Joe Molotov
Member
It's confusing and dumb, so it's probably real.
charlequin
Banned
In the modern era (since people started putting together reasonably competent fake card layouts for faking purposes) there's really one thing to look at in evaluating a picture of a card: where's the art come from? Professional-grade fantasy illustration doesn't just grow on trees, so generally people making fake cards have to pull it off of publicly accessible places (DeviantArt, etc.) Most of the time when art is sourced from one of these, people can track it down pretty quick and prove the card's a fake. Conversely, unseen art which no one can track down points strongly at a real card.
In this case, the art is even more significant than usual. In both cases, it's depicting something that couldn't just be a random piece of repurposed fantasy art, but something narrowly specific to MTG. The picture of Kozilek is, very specifically, a picture of Kozilek, it can't be anything else -- and we haven't seen any source reveal images for OGW that this might have been pulled from, nor is it old promo art from the first block. The Wastes image is actually even more specific -- it depicts mountains converted into bismuth patterns (which, as we saw on Kozilek's Sentinel, is the destruction effect left by Kozilek's brood) in a world where there are floating rocks in the sky, which is insanely specific to Zendikar. And since the bismuth thing is new for BFZ and didn't appear in ROE, it can't possibly be old leftover art. Given all that, it's hard to draw a reasonable conclusion about either illo other than that they're real, and if they're real then the cards are also real.
(This doesn't speak to the Mirrorpool, which comes from a different source and is harder to search out because it's a distorted off-screen image rather than a high-quality mockup like the other two.)
keeblerdrow
Member
Shamelessly stolen from some rando at Something Awful, but too good not to share:
Magic: The Gathering: Look Again, The Mana Is Now Diamonds
Magic: The Gathering: Look Again, The Mana Is Now Diamonds
Oh wow, I never noticed that. Awesome detail.
I'm not a fan of many things in Battle for Zendikar, but I love the Eldrazi art design.
SigmasonicX
Member
Hmm,
Magic: the Gathering - Battle for Zendikar |OT| Look Again, The Mana Is Now Diamonds
That's just barely below the thread title character limit. Using "Oath of the Gatewatch" would make it just two characters too long.
Of course, we'll decide on the title when it's time.
EDIT:
Magic: the Gathering - Oath o/t Gatewatch |OT| Look Again, The Mana Is Now Diamonds
charlequin
Banned
They're totally going to do it.
Yeah fair point.
charlequin
Banned
Nah. What incentive do they have? They'd have to completely rewrite the color identity rules which were a huge pain to get written in the first place.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The problem with Mirrorpool being fake is that the person faking the card would have to see the real cards first and then very quickly mock up another fake card because there's no way they'd know about Distortion Mana or colorless mana symbol whatever its called.
2 possibilities I see:
♦ is the colorless mana symbol and basic lands with a type produce ♦ by default. The rules get rewritten to specify the difference between generic mana and colorless mana - currently, there is no functional difference, but the only way to make a card actually cost colorless mana (instead of just generic mana), you have to either create a symbol (♦
or you have to put it in the text box by saying that some number of the casting cost has to be paid for with colorless mana. ♦ is something like Phyrexian mana where it can be anything WOTC defines it to be, e.g. it could be an option to pay ② or you could just pay ♦ if you have a source for it.
The more I think about it he more the former is more likely than the latter because it resolves the fact that you can't force a player to pay colorless mana at all right now for something without serious clunk and it resolves a minor rules ambiguity since generic mana and colorless mana are in-fact totally different things represented by the same symbol. http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/42052634149/why-are-the-colorless-mana-symbol-eg-add-1 The downside is that you would have to rewrite pretty much every single card to say "T: Add ♦ to your mana pool," but almost nothing would actually use ♦ outside of some stuff in Battle for Zendikar block. In that sense you create more ambiguity, not less, since new player might want to know what's up with this random symbol that never does anything.
The really confusing part would be that you could cast it off of Kozilek's Channeler, but within the same limited format, have this not be obvious based on the card.
manipulate
Member
Intrigued by this <> mana business. I imagine <> has to functionally be a sixth colour unless they're just replacing (1) with it, which seems weird?
That land is is absurd btw.
That land is is absurd btw.
Royal_Flush
Member
Re: Introducing in the small block: Keep in mind that this block was developed under the assumption of a three set/block model. I"d guess they wanted it to show up in the second big set (third in total), but no couldn't justify it flavorwise in the first of two (?)
I see no problem with old cards, there's no need to errata anything. The diamond is just another "new" way to write :1:, but old cards which give colorless will still give colorless. I really don't understand the confusion.
X (including one) in a casting cost is any color of mana.
<> in a casting cost is a non-colored mana.
X (including one) or <> after a add: is colorless mana. 1 and <> in producers are exactly the same thing and old cards could be errataed but i don't think they will, i think they will keep the <> just for this set as a visual clue for the eldrazi spells.
X (including one) in a casting cost is any color of mana.
<> in a casting cost is a non-colored mana.
X (including one) or <> after a add: is colorless mana. 1 and <> in producers are exactly the same thing and old cards could be errataed but i don't think they will, i think they will keep the <> just for this set as a visual clue for the eldrazi spells.
divisionbyzorro
Member
I mean, are they going to re-Oracle every existing card and start using <> from now on? Would they really introduce a new evergreen mechanic in a second set?
I'm still on team "sixth color." They've already declared that cards with colored mana costs are colorless. I think this is a new type of mana mechanically and flavorfully tied to the way that Eldrazi are siphoning the mana out of the plane. I really do not think you can pay for <> costs with (1). Like I said before, if your goal is to make a mana cost that has to be paid for with colorless mana, you can do that much more cleanly without making cards tap for <>.
Also, if <> could be paid for with (1), you would see it in reminder text, even on Mythics, wouldn't you? If <> is a new type of mana, you wouldn't need reminder text because it would behave as it reads.
I'm still on team "sixth color." They've already declared that cards with colored mana costs are colorless. I think this is a new type of mana mechanically and flavorfully tied to the way that Eldrazi are siphoning the mana out of the plane. I really do not think you can pay for <> costs with (1). Like I said before, if your goal is to make a mana cost that has to be paid for with colorless mana, you can do that much more cleanly without making cards tap for <>.
Also, if <> could be paid for with (1), you would see it in reminder text, even on Mythics, wouldn't you? If <> is a new type of mana, you wouldn't need reminder text because it would behave as it reads.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well now it doesn't have a text box so we can't be entirely sure. There's nowhere for them to have put T: Add (1) even if they wanted to
divisionbyzorro
Member
Amusingly, the spoiled "Wastes" card functions more similarly the promo textless cards than it does the other full-art basics, since the other full-arts still have the basic land type which is what grants them their mana abilities according to the rules. Unless the Comp Rules add a section that says "Cards named 'Wastes' have '{T}: Add <> to your mana pool.'"
I meant Mirrorpool, it textually has T: add <>.
Why is this a problem? (<>) counts as itself, and can also count as (1), the same as a Forest produces a (G) that can count as (1). I think it's pretty functionally perfect for what they're trying to do.
If it were a sixth color, Kozilek would have devoid (along with the devoid frame).
divisionbyzorro
Member
That's why I put it in quotes. I don't really think that <> is a sixth "color," but I do think it is a new type of mana (more like snow mana than anything else), and it will be defined as not having a color (which is why it's grey).
guys, guys
are you excited for the legendary cube?
Honestly? Yeah, kind of. I like weird cubes. It'll just be a one-off diversion of course, but I intend to draft it a few times.
Void Mana.
I'm starting to feel like it's a "bonus color" myself. Colorless in 99% of situations but relevant to other cards in the set.
Which I think is really interesting design space - Basic Lands with no subtype that give you access to special mana. Strictly worse than the standard basics in most cases, but opens the door for some interesting decks. Color me interested.
Which I think is really interesting design space - Basic Lands with no subtype that give you access to special mana. Strictly worse than the standard basics in most cases, but opens the door for some interesting decks. Color me interested.
charlequin
Banned
This would be like ten times more parasitic than the stuff we've already seen people be upset is too parasitic. There's almost no way anything with this mechanic would ever be played anywhere if the only way to cast these spells are this specific type of basic land that exists only in this one set -- small set, even. I don't think this idea makes sense because it so obviously doesn't play at all with anything.
Like, even snow mana, which was a problematically parasitic mechanic, didn't appear in casting costs and was generated by lands that still provided regular colors for your other spells; to cast these things (of which there could be, like, maybe six or seven in the set) you'd need to otherwise completely gimp your mana base.
acheron_xl
Member
I really love when an old, old card can get a new context. Looks like a perfect reprint now.
i'll report back sometime this evening or the next day. i don't have anything else to spend tix on anyway. what i'm really looking forward to is the holiday cube.
Keru_Shiri
Member
I'm wondering if we'll see a cycle of fetchlands that can pull either a waste or one of the other basic land types.
It'd be way too narrow. It's more likely that they'll just stick with Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse.
Giant Panda
Member
Magic the Gathering: Oath |OT|-It's a waste to waste Waste with Wasteland.
divisionbyzorro
Member
I don't disagree with you. I just also don't think that you suddenly introduce a synonym for (1) in the second set of a block. I also don't think you need a synonym for (1). And if you aren't putting reminder text on <> then that would seem to indicate that it would function the same way that {G} does. <> mana can pay for <> or generic costs, just like how G mana can pay for G or generic costs. There's no evidence for being able to pay for <> costs with (1), and it's super awkward to re-Oracle all of Magic's history and cards in the same block just to make cards that previously produced (1) suddenly produce <>.
That being said, either way you do it it's kind of terrible. I hated the way BFZ turned out (specifically Devoid), and whether this turns out the way I think or the way you/kirblar think, I kinda think I'm going to hate it too.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I like bismuths
Wulfric
Member
I'm gonna guess that these cards are real. Either that, or they are really good fakes. Like, Rayman in Smash Bros. hoax good.
*New Kozilek artwork. Doesn't really scream Aleksi Briclot to me though.
*The Wastes looks like something Raymond Swanland would do, color and composition wise.
*The copyright info and layout are on point.
*The cards themselves are cool, but not too crazy. Especially the mythic Mirrorpool.
Still, this would be a very weird thing to introduce in the middle of a block, in a small set no less.
*New Kozilek artwork. Doesn't really scream Aleksi Briclot to me though.
*The Wastes looks like something Raymond Swanland would do, color and composition wise.
*The copyright info and layout are on point.
*The cards themselves are cool, but not too crazy. Especially the mythic Mirrorpool.
Still, this would be a very weird thing to introduce in the middle of a block, in a small set no less.
Because if <> = (1) a lot of cards would be changed, visually at least. Seems like a pretty amibitious change.
Remembrance
Member
If Mirrorpool just taps to add (1), why would it come into play tapped?
The obvious answer is "so that Mirrorpool is not strictly better than Wastes." But then, if <> is (1) then there would be a hundred existing lands strictly better than Wastes (basic land status aside). Buried Ruin would be strictly better than wastes.
So <> is not replacing (1).
The obvious answer is "so that Mirrorpool is not strictly better than Wastes." But then, if <> is (1) then there would be a hundred existing lands strictly better than Wastes (basic land status aside). Buried Ruin would be strictly better than wastes.
So <> is not replacing (1).
charlequin
Banned
They leave off reminder text on mythics all the time. Just look at Emrakul and the lack of Annihilator reminder text.
So you can't drop it and then clone something right away.
- Status