Ded

File: alternativespite.jpg (88KB, 496x703px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 496x703px

>>43731149
>Something new
Magic is dead
>Something not new
Magic is dead
>Nothing at all
Magic is dead

Wait untill the motherfucking spoiler season before starting the bingo

No, <> has been there all along.
Kozilek's Channeler
Creature - Eldrazi
5
T: add <><> to your mana pool.
4/4

>>43731207
>Implying colorless didnt already have a symbol.

What effects belong to the colorless part of the color pie?

>>43731449

Absolutely nothing. This is no more a part of the color wheel than phyrexian mana is. As far as I can tell its just a mechanism to drive home the fact that this symbol means 'only colorless mana'.

>>43731149
I like the change. I mixes things up a bit let's you reconsider your mana base. Try out things that previously didn't work.

Functional it will play the same it just mixes things up... So yeah I like it.

So what is the point of wastes exactly? It is worse than every single basic land and it is not like pure colorless mana is hard to come by in limited. You have scions and whatnot after all.

>>43731540
It's a gimmick.

>>43731540
Basic land for colorless EDH decks.

>>43731821
Alright, I'll bite, why would a colorless EDH deck need basic lands?

File: 51.jpg (76KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 312x445px

>>43731859

>>43731877
Couldn't you just use normal basic lands? The color identity of a land is still blank (since it doesn't have any mana symbols), and because you have no color identity, it would produce colorless mana

>>43731877

A "colorless" EDH deck can't make the green mana needed to cast that spell. You can only produce colors that are in your commander's casting cost.

>>43731900
Nope. There's a rule against using basic land types out of your identity.

>>43731900
Colorless =/= color identity. Island is colorless, but has a color identity of blue. The mana symbol is shorthand for "(T): Add (U) to your mana pool", which is how it was written on older basic lands.

>>43731449
You have artifacts, the Eldrazi tribe and transformed cards which are colorless.

The artifacts are probably the most defining cards for the colorless pie slice. However artifact can pretty much do everything.

Besides that the most defining feature is the absence of color, which helps against protection from [color] and landwalk.

>>43731923
He is saying it completely destroys a colorless deck because it makes them sacrifice all their lands. But really, if you're playing to win, you could probably do it before you hit 5GG anyways. Its either a bad card in a competitive environment or a scumbag card is a casual environment.

>>43731900
Basic lands technically have (Tap: add w/u/b/r/g/ to your mana pool). Which gives them a color identity. Same reason why Pyromancer's Goggles are red for color ID.

>>43731950
>which helps against protection from [color] and landwalk.
Both of which no longer exist because they were stupid.

Man, I keep seeing people think it's colorless only. I don't think it can be. Why should eldritch horrors and man-made objects share a color identity? I can't think of two things being more opposite. I think this is the mana of the blind eternities and our planeswalkers are just now coming to understand that mana.

Before we'd thrown whatever mana to cast these spells and that's why they're so expensive, think scour from existence.

I think Ugin isn't actually a colorless walker, but this is the mana he'd been using.

>>43731207
>There are people dumb enough to actually believe this

>>43731449
Everything, but at an insane cost. Artifacts can do basically anything, but they cost a vast amount to do it.

Please tell me this hasn't been confirmed yet.

>>43731923
A better comparison would be imagine playing a colorless edh deck and someone casts Ruination and destroys all of your non-basics.

Wastes protects colorless EDH decks from non-basic land hate and gives them some ramp options with Myriad Landscape and Solemn Simulacrum.

>>43731992
Cost efficiency has nothing to do with the color pie.

>>43731449
What the other colours do, only in a different way. Say, though the use of technology to make it artificially.

In the case of the Eldrazi, there was a leaked shock-esk burn card using this mana that couldn't be prevented, so it plans on putting a twist on the other colours' basic effects.

>>43731449
Colorless can do anything, but it tends to cost a lot more than colored counterparts. Compare Vindicate to Scour from Existence, or Moonglove Extract to Shock, or Jayemdae Tome to Arcanis the Omnipotent.

The exception are cards like Karn, Ugin, and the Eldrazi titans, who get value on-par with colored cards for their casting cost, but their casting cost is so high it's generally okay, Urzatron shenanigans notwithstanding.

Wizards should bring back Pink mana.

File: d5a.png (219KB, 489x400px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 489x400px

>>43732020
Neither do artifacts, they're colorless.

>>43732020

>white gets spot removal at W
>green gets easily removed fatty creatures at 4GGG
>red gets a 3 damage staple instant at R

nigger what the fuck are you doing?

File: 1444288921392.png (382KB, 423x434px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 423x434px

>>43731149
No, but the end is fast approaching.

It starts with Hasbro asking WoTC to bring in more sheckles.

Next, EDH is whored, Standard is whored, lore is whored, mechanics are whored.

Finally, after the game we loved starts to resemble Dominaria, Hasbro pulls the plug because it wasn't "profitable"

It'll never be 2007 again bros.

>>43732052
White also gets spot removal at 4W and red gets a 3 damage sorcery at 3R.

>>43731985
The fact is that Kozilek's color identity is colorless.

>>43732054
My internal reaction to this post can only be described in one way.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>43731985
you'd have to be patently insane to think wizards would add a sixth color or snow mana 2 after everything they've learned.

File: Lawpool with filled enemy board.jpg (120KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x450px

>>43731149
>Barry's Land.
>One of the most desired and most difficult to implement cards in Magic's history (mainly for EDH).
>They actually managed to find a way to make it useful in the form of a ingeniously crafted, backward compatible sixth colour.
>Cards using this colour are strange and interesting.
>This effect may even fix some of BFZ's shitty cards by giving them more to synergize with or just encourage manabases worth less than $700.
>Magic is dead.

What even goes on in that placid little brain of your's? It must be so dull.

>>43732054
>We'll never go back to dominaria because JACE has no interest in the place
Kill me already newwalkers are the worst thing to have happened to magic

The non-generic portion of a card's mana is basically its area code.

>>43732171
>backwards compatible
>"hey guys we're making colorless mana matters with a new symbol to differentiate it from generic mana in the second set of a two set block! don't forget to not change the templating on colorless mana producers such as the new lands and mana producers like kozilek's channeler and hedron archive!"
this was a huge fuckup and wizards knows it

>>43732171
>Cards using this colour are strange and interesting.
>colorless
>strange and interesting
what are you smoking mate?

>>43732150
You would have to be patently insane to think they would do a massive errata on the scale you're suggesting after everything they've learned

>>43732171
>>Barry's Land.
This isn't Barry's Land, m8

>>43732171
No, this isn't Barry's Land. Barry is rolling in his grave. Barry's Land was supposed to make Domain more powerful. This is just trash.

>>43732261
>/trash/

>>43732171

You are the biggest bullshitter ever, none of what you've said is true.

>>43732241
Barry's land is the name of the concept of a basic land that taps for colorless.

Unless you know what the non full art text of the card says you're probably wrong.

>>43732241
this is functionally Barry's land in pretty much every way.

>>43732548

not really,

it doesn't add +1 to domain effects, because it doesn't have a basic land type.

>>43732455
>>43732548
Except it doesn't do shit for domain which was barry's first purpose Unless they fucking Errata how domain work anyways

>>43732548

>taps for retarded mana and not colorless mana

>good for anything other than casting spells that require retarded mana

leave, fucking leave and never come back

>>43732455
Barry's Land is the name of the land that they tried to design during Invasion to make Domain more powerful but couldn't. This land doesn't interact with Domain at all.

>>43731149
>probably a new version of snow mana
>MAGIC IS DEAD
Yeah sure

>>43732227
>Vigilance
>Fear
>Menace
>Intimidate
>legend rule
>legend rule again
>damage stacking
>damage not stacking
>manaburn
>scrying after mulligan

Changing (1) to <> isn't even errata, it's no different than how they no longer print lands with "add X to your mana pool"

File: goblin piledriver.png (150KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 223x311px

>>43731979
???

>>43731191
I'm surprised nobody has commented on your pic. That's terrible.

>>43731467
What does it mean when a land produces 'only colorless mana'

>>43731149
Could it be a basic land that taps for 2 colorless???

>>43732773
We literally have no idea what it actually means, even.

Also, add:
>double faced cards
>mythic rarity
>bannings
>unbannings
>planeswalkers
>literally anything ever done since magic's creation

People complained about 60 card decks and the 4 card maximum. Everything is sky-falling doom.

>>43733198
No, it taps for one colorless. Don't be fucking retarded.

>>43733198
Sol ring land, infinitely better than temple of the false god. Basic land. Sure, why not.

>>43733318
It taps for <salt> anon.

>>43733042
That mana can be used to pay generic mana costs or colorless-only mana costs.

>>43731979
They still exist, they're just not evergreen.

Not only is /tg/ bad at magic, but at reading comprehension too.

File: Image.jpg (70KB, 470x470px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 470x470px

>>43733336
>salt

That's clearly MOTHERFUCKING bismuth.

>>43733341
Oh, so it's functionally the same as colorless mana when on a producer, but different when on a cost.

Brilliant design, why don't you submit some of your custom cards to R&D, I'm sure they'll love it.

>>43733370
You realize this is real, right? Wizards of the Coast made this.

>>43733370
It allows for aggressively-costed colorless spells because they don't slot into every single color combo without penalty.

>>43733198
>they literally just printed Temple of the Forsaken Gods

Why is everyone literally going full retard about these stupid lands? It's literally just some autist in R&D saying, 'WHAT IF COLORLESS...WAS A COLOR???' like he's a 12-year old smoking weed for the first time

>>43733426
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.

File: Image-1.jpg (29KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 223x310px

>>43731979
u wot m8?

One thing that is really crappy about not being able to have its own land type is that it means making cards that look at Wastes is more awkward to word.

Instead of
>Waste lands
It has to be
>lands named Wastes

>>43733405
No, they've made these cards, and you're interpreting how they might work, badly.

Nobody but WotC knows how these cards work at the moment, but there's about a million holes with the "only colorless mana can pay these costs" theory.

WotC is pretty good at templating things right. If there wasn't a functional difference between producing 1 vs producing <>, then they wouldn't bother using the <> symbol on lands that could just produce 1. The alternatives are either errating a shit load of cards, something WotC wants to avoid (including cards printed in the set before this one, so whoopsie!), or this is a new type of mana altogether. Generic mana (1) most likely cannot satisfy salt mana (<>), because that theory has the least amount of holes in it.

>>43733456
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/evergreen-eggs-ham-2015-06-08

>Protection
>This last mechanic actually should have an asterisk next to it. Unlike intimidate and landwalk, it's not leaving as much as it's being downgraded. In fact, Magic Origins has one creature in it with protection. Moving forward, protection is moving from what we call evergreen to deciduous. It's a tool in our toolbox that we're allowed to use, but it's not something we expect to use in every set. Think of it as something like hybrid mana—that shows up from time to time in a set that needs it. It isn't, however, something you should expect to see all the time.

>>43733486
>shows up from time to time
>doesn't exist

Learn. To. Read.

>>43733484
>there's about a million holes with the "only colorless mana can pay these costs" theory

I'd sincerely love to have you point them out.

>If there wasn't a functional difference between producing 1 vs producing <>, then they wouldn't bother using the <> symbol on lands that could just produce 1.

If there wasn't a functional difference between "cannot be blocked except by two or more creatures" vs "menace", then they wouldn't bother using "menace" on creatures that could just have "cannot be blocked except by two or more creatures"

>The alternatives are either errating a shit load of cards, something WotC wants to avoid

WotC is averse to most functional errata. They have no qualms changing old cards that spelled out what's now keyworded. For example, Opt now uses scry. There's no reason a simple symbol change would be any different.

>Generic mana (1) most likely cannot satisfy salt mana (<>)

You're assuming anything that produces (1) can't just produce (<>) with errata.

>>43733551

>thinking it's a good idea, viable or justified to errata (1) to <>

i hate you

>>43733603
Who said it was a good idea? I'm saying it's the idea that Wizards will probably implement, based on the information we have available to us.

>>43733551
Here's why it can't
1: there is a new land (mirrorpool) which explicitly taps eldrazi mana
2: therefore, all lands which would be able to tap for it need erratra
3: it would be easier to add erratra to the cards with the new mana type (on commons/uncommons)
4: therefore, it is most likely a distinct type of mana

Furthermore, the need for the new mana type arises from r and d wanting to print good eldrazi without just handing them to MUD/12 post decks. 10 mana for that effect is pretty castable in those archetypes. Rather than handing them to those decks, they require a deck built to cast them, with lands that tap for essentially a color

File: AnonDoesntKnowWhatHitHim.jpg (19KB, 686x79px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 686x79px

>>43731149
Threadly Reminder.

File: 209.jpg (69KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 312x445px

>>43731979

Really?

>>43733770
I was in that thread
That retard won't do it you know
Hell the fucking spoiler was solid and triply confirmed

>>43733701
this

>>43731979
a creature with islandwalk was reprinted as late as m15,

stormbreath dragon has protection from white.

you're just an idiot.

>>43733999
I know that, anon. The plan is not to get him to do it, but to annoy the shit out of him by posting that pic threadly or daily for the next 4 months. But nice Dub-Trips, though.

>>43734144
Thoughts?

>>43733770
At least he has Lili's. Mine got stolen. [sopiler];_;[/spoiler]

>>43734046
>>43733813
>>43733456
>>43732984
Wizards stated that protection would no longer be evergreen, basically meaning protection use to be around like flying or trample, here and there, but now that it's not evergreen, we'll only see a card with protection ever so often, Goblin Piledriver being one of the few with it from recently released packs, but even then he's just a reprint.
Notice how the amount of protection printed has been on the decline, in fact, there were no protection cards at all in BFZ
This was stated right before Magic Origins was released btw.

>>43734278
I don't mind that, it's kind of a shitty, non-interactive mechanic (says the storm player)

File: n23-566d.jpg (200KB, 672x594px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 672x594px

hoping this makes modern mud viable

>>43733701

This is exactly my thinking as well.

>>43732176
Seriously. How hard theyre pushing jace to be the average mtg player's self inser is killing me.

Though it doesnt kill me as fast as the fact that it fucking works most of the time.

>>43734203
It was clear from the day the set symbol was spoiled that Kozilek would be back in Oath.

>>43733701
>r and d wanting to print good eldrazi
>but limit it with some "non-color" color
I have no idea what r&d wants, because right around gatecrash it seemed to me they where pumping out multi colored lands, color fetching, mana smoothing, and ramp like there was no tomorrow
so didn't that really just shoot themselves in the foot if they where trying to avoid breaking mana access limitations in general?

Also the addition of planeswalkers seem really mechanically bankrupt, utility dense, and game redefining, and Theros the "enchantment block" was disappointing, so r&d was already on thin ice with me

>>43734705
>No Jace for two sets
>Jace shows up for a set
>The sky is falling

>>43734705
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIC-PCMNqLE&list=PLvqw7t0kbGX-l-sXDwMueicghKEH0hv6-&index=1
this was a pretty good explanation imo

>>43734730
No. MUD/12 post/tron are color light decks because of the deckbuilding constraints they need to function. A 10 mana spell that protects itself and draws cards is a little too close to castable if you can cast it off monoliths, metalworkers and sol lands

If this is true, explaining colorless erratas to newbies is going to be annoying.

>That says 1 generic mana, not 1 colorless!

>>43734780
ok? i didn't know r&d care about modern? legacy? what am i missing?
I thought WotC effectively stopped caring about anything but standard

File: 635823146225462416.jpg (84KB, 486x370px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 486x370px

>>43734865
Have you ever taught Magic to people? Getting them to understand that generic mana is not the same as colorless mana involves at least one mental step of abstraction.

File: 1445030836438.gif (407KB, 535x480px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 535x480px

>>43734865

Fuck newbies. Just get their wastes saying they are useless lands. PROFIT.

>>43734883
Not sure where any of those ideas came from

>>43734883
WotC only cares about draft and collectors, bro.

>>43735191
they care a little about standard, because they make dosh off of people who think they can get into pro tours and shit. They also care a little about edh because of the sealed product line.

>>43731149
no.

>>43735191
Draft is all I need.

>>43731964
It's more about it blowing up all their lands at the same time that you're blowing up their mana rocks/utility artifacts/engines/arti-creatures, basically their whole fucking board; while suffering little to no losses yourself.
Even gets around indestructible, just in case they should have darksteel forge or something.

It's a fair sight more brutal than just saccing their lands, and the average competitive green deck can hit 7 mana T3 no sweat if they're packing sol rings/mana crypts.

>>43731540
There's no indication that the <> symbol on Wastes produces colorless mana. The new Kozilek, which was spoiled at the same time, costs 8<><>.

File: 270b.jpg (67KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 312x445px

>>43731149
Fake and Gay
notice anything missing?

>>43736213
lol

u dun goofd son

File: blightedgorge.jpg (41KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 265x370px

>>43736235
compare the two cards
if its a basic land it should have a subtype like this basic forest form BFZ however it doesn't, and this is ignoring the inconsistency in the art style as it doesn't match what the land looks like in each of the Blighted cycle or in the background of the other Eldrazi cards
if any of the spoiled cards are real i would be quite surprised

>>43736274
ahahahaha!

>>43736274
your denial is stunning

File: Omnath-Locus-of-Rage_BFZ_1920x1080_Wallpaper.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>43736274
I think bismuth land is dumb too, but we have at least one example of bismuth-scapes on Zendikar from Omnath, Locus of Rage's art.

>>43734751
Holy shit the narrator of this is such a ridiculous mega-faggot.
>I'm going to be using the technique of compare and contrast
>a war so devastating it was called the brother's war (fucking what?)
>urza was used as the figurehead for Magic
He was, but wasn't gerrard also a really big deal? Bigger in weatherlight/tempest I think. Gerrard was 100% mary sue, but nostalgia often gives him a pass.
Decent comparisons, but that could've easily been a 7 minute video, he have a quota or something?

>>43731149
As a guy who criticises anything and everything, I actually really like the idea of forcing people to have actual colourless mana as a pseudo 6th colour. It's kind of clever.

>>43736345
As a community college he has to explain things to the less initiated, dude
It was just a simple comparison, if you want his opinions on Gerrard, just ask him to do one

Also I bet most new players know Urza exists, but not Gerrard, So it would be a more difficult comparison, just saying

>>43736274
>if its a basic land it should have a subtype

Why? It's been messed up by the Eldrazi, who aren't known for being normal. What's interesting about being a basic land but having no type is that Evolving Wilds can fetch Wastes, while Flooded Strand cannot. And the art is consistent with like 4+ cards from BFZ as they have bismuth in them too.

>>43736353
But it already existed
And if it's just a forced colorless "color" they could have just force spells to specifically use colorless mana, and not generic mana, and that doesn't require a new symbol, as has been discussed previously in this thread

>>43736274
He doesn't have a subtype because the subtype only serves to indicate the colour of the produced mana. Wastes produce colorless mana, so they don't need a subtype.

>>43731149
I actually like it, I can use my titans as commanders now

>>43736357
>As a community college he has to explain things to the less initiated, dude
Wasn't criticizing him on that, the two things I talked complained about was his mannersims and the fact that " war so devastating it was called the brother's war" doesn't make any sense.
Sorry I called him a mega-faggot I wrote that half way threw the video and forgot to change it to just general annoyance when he stopped being cringe worthy half way through.

>>43736381
>war so devastating it was called the brother's war"
..a war so devastating, it was known to all of dominaria as "the brothers war"

he was just saying it was so big, it was known plane wide with a single name

not sure what you're irritated by

File: you're big!.jpg (23KB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 350x250px

>>43736381
>" war so devastating it was called the brother's war" doesn't make any sense.
I'm guessing it means the war was so big that everyone actually decided to call it something?

>>43736398
>he was just saying it was so big, it was known plane wide with a single name
Is there really a correlation between a war being big and it having less names?
I'd imagine the exact opposite actually.
>it was known to all of dominaria
That's fine but the it's unnecessary by the statement that comes right after it saying it's conclusion shook the core of Dominaria.

>>43736459
You are really picking at nothing

>>43736475
OK Senpai.

File: 129.jpg (73KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 312x445px

>>43736321
See also here, which is a Kozilek-themed spawn card. And who's the big threat in OGW?

What if this new bizzare mana type makes it so spells casted using it are considered colorless?

>>43736505
Seems pretty pointless, since we already have devoid. The cards it's on doesn't seem colored anyways.

>>43736511
It would make non-devoid cards devoid. Which would kind of defeat the purpose of devoid in the first place.

>>43736530
Yeah, there's no point in having another mechanic for making colorless cards right now, it would just clash with devoid.

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/133582047983/whenif-a-new-type-of-mana-like-snow-mana

>When/If: A new type of mana (like snow mana)
>When

ELDRAZI LAND IS NEW SNOW LAND CONFIRMED

File: kozilekthegreatdistortion.jpg (36KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 265x370px

Seeing as how regular colorless mana is worth about 2/3 colored mana, which is why you need more to do the equivalent effect, this will probably allow for more efficient colorless <> spells. Like...2/2 for <><> with a decent effect.

>>43736586
oh fug mtg is kill

>>43736613
mtg has been kill three times a year, every year, for the past 20 years.
But it still hasn't died yet.

>>43731149
For the first time in years, a spoiled card has actually caught my interest. I really want to know what cards can produce <>; whether sources that once produced 1 or 2 now produce <> or <><>, with the new symbol denoting mana with none of the other five color identities, or whether it follows the precedent of Snow mana and only <> mana can pay for<> costs with 1 still being the template for mana that can only be used for generic costs.

The fact that they would showcase <> on a basic land suggests a mechanical similarity to Snow-typing, but that's far from conclusive.

Reminder that Wizards are going to print a cycle of filterlands that produce 3 colourless mana.

>>43733256
Signs point to it being the new way wizards rights (1) when colorless mana is produced and a a way to indicate colorless only requirements in mana costs. Again because you would have to be insane to assume its a new color or eldrazy snow mana

>>43731449
Inefficiency

Although that's kinda shaky now, for things with this new colorless only cost instead of a generic cost.

>>43731149

So what does destroyed land become wastelands now?

>>43736813
>rights
writes

and your a retard because the spoilers have 8<><> which would just be 9<> or 10 if what you said made any sense
>>43736613

>>43732227
>errata

But it doesn't.

>>43736813
If it doesn't work the way Snow mana does, why give it a basic land the way Snow type has? And if it's a template change, why would you introduce that halfway through a block, leading to a Standard where both forms of templating will presumably coexist?

It's either a new 'identity' similar to Snow-typing, or it's a really poorly executed templating change. Precedent suggests, at least to me, that the former is more reasonable. Which isn't to say of course that the latter is impossible, nobody outside of Wizards could say that for certain.

>>43734751
But Jace is actually better than Urza in every way but flavor text.

>>43736888
Mother fucker I will cut you

>>43736861
>and your a retard because the spoilers have 8<><> which would just be 9<> or 10 if what you said made any sense
I thought you idiots were a myth.
The concept is that <> can only be played with 'colorless mana', rather than {1} which can be payed with any color of mana.

>>43736861
>corrects grammar
>can't even reed properly

Kozi's cost is 8<><> because like I said, signs point to <> replacing (1) whenever it is written in an ability that generates colorless mana. In mana costs they are distinct because (1) is generic mana and <> can only be payed by colorless mana

>>43736916
You rather have they guy who destroyed a plane to power his car to the guy who has been near suicidal to fix any and all of his fuck ups?

>>43736945
please read what you wrote, because the guy blowing up a plane to power his car sounds way cooler than a fucking suicidal asshole who only fixes those fuck ups when his betters tell him to
and btw jace is a vapid piece of shit, with edgelord quotes

>>43736960
And Urza isn't?

>>43736930
My question with that would be why you'd have to extend the new template that applies to mana costs to lands if there's already no shortage of sources that produce the necessary mana. The current template conveys the characteristics of the mana produced just fine, so why add a new symbolic link?

File: 1445768921988.jpg (20KB, 381x380px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 381x380px

>>43734481
Why would it?

>>43736987

Not that guy, but the current system uses the same symbol with two different meanings. In costs a (1) is a good thing, it means you can pay it with any mana. In mana abilities a (1) is a bad thing, it means you can only use it to pay generic costs. Them using the same symbol when they have the near opposite meaning is unintuitive. Differentiating between colorless and generic mana by using different symbols is just good graphic design, and it's strange that WotC didn't do the change years ago.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced the spoiled cards are real, mostly due to the lack of a basic land type.

>>43736987
Wizard might have the impression that with this new colorless man cost, they will make people use colored spell less cause they need so many colorless producing lands.

But that will fail immediately cause the cards with <> in cost wil have too little devotion to <> for it to matter. And/or the <> cards will be too weak to replace colorless cards that already exist without the <>.

Unless they make <> evergreen for all big ass afrtifacts.

>>43736874
Cause if it isn't basic, you can't have any number of them in your deck.

>>43737061
I would debate that point. "Generic" mana costs simply don't check the property of color identity, while mana produced under the same symbolic notation lacks that property. Creating a symbol that checks for a property and sources that produce mana with that property in a block where the current symbolic notation has already been used implies that<> involves a property that is unrelated to color identity or a lack thereof.

The difference between <> and Snow seems to be that Snow sources can produce mana that does possess a color identity, while the new property will only be associated with mana that lacks a color identity.

>>43737199

Well, until it's confirmed that 1) the spoiled cards are real and 2) how they actually work, it's all speculation. My point was that the current graphic solution is unintuitive, and that the proposed system of <> denoting "strictly colorless" as opposed to generic fixes that. No matter what the symbols really mean and how it's implemented I think it's very inelegant to include it only in the second set of the block.

Do you mean "color" or "color identity" by the way? The second only matters in EDH as far as I know.

>>43737276
It's been a while since I read the comprehensive rules about it, but I've been under the impression that "generic" mana is mana that lacks any specific characteristics: defined by the lack of color to be checked when paying for something rather than the presence of a "colorless" trait. This is the same way Snow works, as an ability or cost that cares checks to see if the mana in question was produced by a snow permanent.

>>43737363

I'm sorry for the wall of greentext, but I think quoting the relevant passages will clear up confusion. Even if you and I already know this, then for other readers of the thread. I'll try a TL.DR: Objects and mana can be colorless. Costs can be generic. The same symbol (1) is currently used for both colorless or generic depending on circumstance. The snow symbol is used in costs and means generic costs from a snow source, it is not use for mana only costs.

With that in mind I'd say that the <> is not like snow, since Mirrorpool has an ability that says "add <>", and we've never seen the equivalent of that on a snow land.

>105.2. An object can be one or more of the five colors, or it can be no color at all.

>106.1b. There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.

>107.4b. Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana.

>107.4c. Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads "add [mana symbol] to your mana pool" or something similar.

>107.4h. The snow mana symbol {S} represents one generic mana in a cost. This generic mana can be paid with one mana of any type produced by a snow permanent

>>43734780
Just to sum up this thread:

>The new mana would be really obviously broken if it could be paid with colorless mana
>Therefore, the new mana is broken and wizards screwed the pooch

Or, you now, the retarded speculation which ignores all evidence and is just random guessing is wrong

>>43737434
Ah. That's the part of the comp rules I was missing.

So it now isn't clear at all to me whether <> is new notation or not. I'll just wait and see, I guess.

>>43737434
What you have proven is that it isn't EXACTLY like snow mana. What you have failed to prove is that it isn't a mechanic SIMILAR to snow mana, meaning a block specific mana type that can be used to pay generic costs as well as specific costs. If they have mana creatures that tap for it, rather than have an "eldrazi mana" suptype they can just explicitly add it without being functionally different

>>43734705
>theyre pushing jace to be the average mtg player's self inser
They did? Admittedly I skipped return to Ravnica, but I never noticed Jace to be particularly pushed.

>>43737532
Come on, either it's like snow, or it isn't. The difference between regular mana and mana from a snow permanent is already so miniscule that an argument that "Yes, you've proven that it's diffferent from snow, but not different enough." seems irrelevant.

I merely wanted to provide the rules background showing how the "<> = strictly colorless" interpretation seems to work with the current comp rules. (ignoring the lack of a basic land type)

I have no idea what you mean by mana subtypes, but my guess is that <> can be used to pay either (1) or <> costs if that's what you mean.

I'm kind of annoyed the first Basic card since the original lands is another land.

Relentless Rats was going to be a Basic Creature until it was changed in favor of rules text at the last moment.

>>43736586
Most have been saying that since the start
>that one anon from the last thread who is absolutely BTFO at this point

My name is Jace and milling is my favorite strategy. Then wizards prints a planeswalker named Jace.
Life is interesting

>>43736191
It doesn't matter if it produces colorless mana or not since it can be used to pay for <> and generic mana costs anyway. The functionality is the same either way.

When do the spoils actually start? December, January, when?

They could have released wastes in commander only so it doesn't wonk up everything else

>>43738179
Magic needs to take risks if they want to keep selling.

effects that reduce costs by an amount of generic mana cannot refuce <> in a cost. even if you managed to have 100 heralds of kozilek, this new kozilek would still cost you 2 mana. how does this make you feel?

>>43738266
fine, because relying on twincasting rites of replication on a herald of kozilek just to "cheat" out an eldrazi is dumb

>>43738279
>the point
>your head

>>43734900

why do you have 2 different cards when Thought Vessel alone would do the job?

>>43734278
There were 2 in BFZ but they fucking suck.
>Pro from Scion Tokens
>Pro from Colorless

So why can't we just wait and see what WotC says about <> mana?

>>43738225
Like disbanding the reserve list?
Statute of limitations when

>>43738413
If you don't want to participate in a speculation thread, no one is forcing you.

>>43738407
There were no cards in BFZ with the keyword Protection.

>>43733696
>>43733696
How can someone be so fucking stupid? That's way more work that having it tap for <> as a functional 6th color that still can pay for generic colorless mana as well.

>>43738470
adding a functional sixth color carries way more rules baggage than changing what colorless mana looks like

>>43736987

because they want to make a basic land for colorless and basic lands get symbols not strings of text.

>>43738504
basic lands also have their mana tappig ability by dint of their subtype and the rules. strictly speaking, wastes doesn't have the ability to produce mana. they didn't even give it a ahitty expedition "full art" frame with a text box. if it does tap for colorless or <> or whatever, the card's entire text box would technically be errata.

>>43738487
Sure, we're definitely getting some new rules, but it's not that difficult to grok, and the rules could handle it. When you tap wastes for <>, it can pay for <> or generic mana, just like any of the five colors. <> in a mana cost provides no color identity.

>>43737590
Whatever the case, the "only colorless mana" theory holds no water, see>>43733701

The faulty theory seems to be based on the logic that "eldrazi were colorless". This set has been about colored cards that are colorless. Its more likely snow mana or even mana of any color, generic colored mana. That would also interact with converge

>>43738530
No, basic land have their mana tapping ability by virtue of being basic land. The subtype only determine the colour of the mana tapped. Which is why by not having a subtype the wastes produce colorless mana. If <> was a new mana colour wastes had to have a subtype or a text to make sense.

it's going to be colorless-only in costs and "this is colorless" in producers, and yes that does mean that there will be a big ass errata that changes things like sol ring to produce <><>.

Yes yes, I know, its all very scary, but together I'm sure we can get past this.

>>43736960
Keep masturbating if you want, but out of my /tg/ please.

>>43738668
Literally the worst way WotC could go about this, and they hate functional errata, so I think you're a dumbass who has no idea what he's talking about.

>>43738727
Yeah, it's not like they have changed "add one colorless mana" into "add 1" before.

>>43738727

The eratta makes no functional changes whatsoever. It's literally just updating all the sources of colorless to use the new colorless mana symbol.

>>43738621
If you're talking about the current rules, that is not correct. A land needs a basic land type (Plains, Island...) to have the intrinsic ability to tap for a mana of the appropriate color. Just being basic doesn't give a land any mana abilities.

>>43738668
Adding a basic land type that specifically adds colourless to pool? Fantastic, it means colourless EDH decks aren't a punch in the dick.

Then adding a card which specifically need colourless mana to cast? Retardo.

>>43738727
There are people this retarded who play magic

>>43738777

I don't see why. The eldrazi in particular are supposed to hate colored mana. That they would need colorless mana specifically is a straightforward extension of their fluff and a reasonable way to offer colorless decks a little more cost effectiveness without damaging game balance.

File: 1195541187596.jpg (53KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 300x225px

>>43733363
Yeah it is. I want that Bismuth land so fukkin bad m8.

>>43734232
Buy some chinese for 12$ the set

>>43736813
>Signs point to it being the new way wizards rights (1)
And what signs would those be?

the only thing <> means is "no more eldrazi for tron"

>>43734739
No jace for two sets? Nigga you what? What is this 1998?

>>43738918
This, holy fuck

>>43738918
but <> can be paid for with colorless.
It just means it cant be paid with any colored mana.

>>43738989
No, it doesn't. <> can only be paid for with lands that generate <>, of which we only know two.

>>43738989
then, i hope for tron lands reprint in whatever core sets are now made into

>>43738993
nope.

>>43738993
don't understand, the rules have been published or is just stupid speculation what we are doing?

>>43738668
So let's get this straight. You think that wizards is going to erratra all colorless lands to tap for a color. And you believe this, despite there being many other theories that require less rewriting the whole, with your main argument being "The eldrazi in the past have been colorless creatures, therefore any mana used to cast them has to be colorless"

Do you understand why that's a bad argument?

>>43739040
How is changing the simbol for colorless mana in order to differentiate it from generic mana "errata all colorless land to tap for a color"?

>>43739033
If you weren't an absolute idiot you could see why they wouldn't make a "can only be paid for with (1)" symbol

>>43739073
If you weren't an absolute idiot you could see why making a basic land with no subtypes and no rules generate a six colour of mana would be retarded compared to just changing (1) when it means colorless mana into <>

I cant wait till we get a confirmation of what these actually mean so this paticular shitstorm can end

>>43739101
>just changing (1) when it means colorless mana into <>
Except that it fucking does't mean that anymore. <> is going to be the 6th color and only lands printed in Oath are going to generate it.

>>43739124
Yeah, it's such a clever move changing the rules in order to make that basic land without subtypes are going to generate a sixth colour of mana instead of just adding the "waste" subtype.

>>43739184
>adding the "waste" subtype
What subtype? Do you see a fucking subtype on the card?

>>43732206
It's just as much of a fuck up as changing all the "Tap to" cards into a tapped symbol.

>>43739198
Exactly you overlord of all the retard.

What the fuck would be more simple, adding a "waste" subtype that add a sixth colour of mana or rewriting the core rules in order to create a sixth colour that is generated when a basic land card lacks a subtype?

Now look at the fact that that card lacks a subtype, and gets your conclusions.

It's fucking obvious that <> is not a new colour of mana but a change form (1) to <> for the ones that don't have their heads up their asses.

>>43736621
My theory:
<> can only be paid with colorless mana.
<> lands produce colorless mana,
and can be used to pay for generic mana costs, or things with <> in them.
A painland tapped for a colorless can be used to pay for a generic mana, or a <> card.
A painland tapped for colored mana can be used to pay for an artifact, but cannot be used to pay the <> part of a card.

Plus 1 in a circle would look really dumb in a fullart basic land and was probably a driving reason why the symbol, along with it being more intuitive for new players to understand, and a easy way for the new mana symbol.

In conclusion I like it. Colorless has kind of always been the 6th color, and not it's official.

>>43738421
Life of the Creator plus 70 Years ;)

>>43739040
>is going to erratra all colorless lands to tap for a color

no. <> is not a color. it is a symbol for colorless.

>>43739265
>What the fuck would be more simple, adding a "waste" subtype that add a sixth colour of mana or rewriting the core rules in order to create a sixth colour that is generated when a basic land card lacks a subtype?
They would both take the same amount of effort, which is far less headache than wizards coming out and saying "Oh by the way, (1) is (<>) now, hope you don't mind explaining that your painlands can tap for eldrazi every FNM."

>It's fucking obvious that <> is not a new colour of mana but a change form (1) to <> for the ones that don't have their heads up their asses.
That's funny because it's painfully clear that you have no idea what you're talking about

>>43739331
That's only for intellectual property

Well, if <> is going to be the new symbol for all colorless mana (as opposed to just a particular kind of mana that happens to also be colorless), it would solve a problem that new players sometimes face.

So, {1} on a card can mean two things. It can mean "one of any color or colorless" in the case of a cost or it can mean "one colorless". I've seen new players think that since you can cast Runeclaw Bear with one green and one of any color, then surely a mind stone taps for one of any color.

>>43739355
It could be argued that the reserved list qualifies. And if not, then it's a contract that has no expiry date.

>>43739345
Yeah, after all there are two possibilities.

Either <> is a sixth color generated by basic lands without subtypes, which is unintuitive, confusing for newbie, literally impossible to use in commander, and will be reserved to just one or two expansion at best while completely useless in eternal formats.

Or it's the new simbol for colorless mana, which is simple to implement, it solve problems for newbies (>>43739365), it opens a lot of development options, it's gonna be a lot useful in commander and it makes a splash that would have an impact in eternal formats.

I would say that the second is the better option, but I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, so I guess you think it's the first?

File: Polis Crusher.jpg (30KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 223x310px

>>43739365
I lack the link, but Maro did a what if he went back in time thing. And stated that he wishes they did a specific symbol to denote generic mana costs instead of a number to make the game easier for new players to understand converted mana costs.

So for example, pic related would be printed as
<><>{R}{G}

>>43739489
>Either <> is a sixth color generated by basic lands without subtypes, which is unintuitive, confusing for newbie, literally impossible to use in commander, and will be reserved to just one or two expansion at best while completely useless in eternal formats.
Despite all of your floundering and poor use of the english language this is still more likely

>>43739520
Because?

>>43738800
>>43738763
Then why the fuck does Kozilek still have an (8) in his mana cost and not 10 <>'s?
It makes no sense to gimp Wastes to be unable to produce mana that cannot pay for generic costs.

>>43739541
Because Wizards doesn't care if these cards are used in eternal formats. In fact, the entire reason <> was created was so that giant ass Eldrazi spells don't just slot right into Tron and MUD decks and wreck Modern and Legacy. Since Wastes don't have a color identity due to not actually producing colored mana, they can be used as basic lands in colorless commander decks like Karn, Silver Golem. Finally, when has a flashy new mechanic that was introduced in a set become something that lasts forever? And I don't mean keywording the Goblin War Drums ability to Menace, I mean shit like Phyrexian Mana. Was it Hybrid?

>>43738040
The only spoil I can remember getting in December in the past was Damnation, which was spoiled on New Years Eve as the ball dropped.

>>43739489
I don't think it necessarily is a sixth color. I think it is just a specific type of colorless mana.

I think that would be the easiest solution. It is colorless mana, so it is usable for things like Karn EDH, but it is also the only way to cast certain new cards or pay certain costs.

>>43739612
prowess became evergeen pretty much immediately

>>43739612
This anon has the only reasonable interpretation so far.

>>43739605
Because the 8 can be paid with any color. <> can only be paid with colorless. {1} would be relegated to only be in costs and would no longer mean "colorless" mana but mean "any mana, including any color or colorless".

I don't think that's what <> means, but it is a possibility.

>>43739605
Colorless =/= Generic
Colorless has always been able to pay for generic. I see no reason for it to change.

>>43739612
Do you even hear yourself talking? If <> is a sixth color then Wastes would have a <> color identity and be impossible to play in Commander unless you use an Eldrazi commander.

Also there are no more Core Sets. Either they introduce new things in a set or they'll never introduce them again. Also >>43739647

>>43739656
His reasonable interpretation is that <> would be a new color without a color identity.

>>43739706
But it's not actually a 6th color, it just acts that way. Aren't you tired from doing all of those mental gymnastics yet?

>>43739737
If it's the same dipshit from yesterday, then he's just doing it for the (You)s

>>43739737
>"colorless has a new symbol" involves more mental gymnastics than a 6th color that isn't really a sicth color, it just acts that way
/tg/ pls

>>43739768
It's no more difficult to understand than spells with no colored mana symbols not being artifacts

>>43739768
This is hilarious

>>43739786
>a color that is not actually a color is easier to understand than a thing not having a type written on it
pls stop

Why are they doing this in the last set in the block and a small set at that?

>>43739817
because regardless of what this new symbol actually means, it is definitely fucking retarded.

My guess:
>New symbol specifies a requirement for colourless mana in the cost of spells and abillities
>Lands using it is just for consistency of the set and to make it obvious to new players
>That's really it

>>43739817
Only thing I can think of is that they are worried about it being too powerful in long-term applications and only wanted a small set of cards. Fewer cards to balance means less work.

As an example, Planar Chaos and only Planar Chaos was going to have Purple until they cut it.

>>43739817
Probably because they decided to switch to the two-set system in the middle of development for BFZ block and now they have to cram the big 3rd set reveal into the small second set. Even more proof that this is just a flash in the pan and nothing that is going to have a lasting impact

>>43739815
Except they've done it before and this time it's even easier to understand for retards like you because the symbol you need to pay for matches the symbol for the mana that the lands from the set produce.

>>43739033
No, some people had an idea and are unable to comprehend why it's wrong

>>43731149
Perhaps we get an Eldrazi Plainswalker together with the Wastes.

>>43739858
>Generic mana from snow permanents is the same thing as a sixth color of mana that is not really a color and is produced by basic lands that don't have a subtype.

>>43739858
Well, they didn't do it for Boreal Druid.

I doubt <> is just colorless with a new symbol only for this set. It is either its own thing that happens to be colorless OR the new colorless mana symbol.

I personally think it is the first.

>>43731149
>White
>Black
>Blue
>Green
>Red

>Bismuth

What gives?

File: 1388163640588s.jpg (1KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 100x100px

>>43739906
>I don't have anything to actually say so I'm just going to greentext and hope for replies

I would velieve <> is only the colorless mana symbol for this set. I think that is several levels of stupid, but I believe it is something wotc would do.

>>43739929
>I'm going to keep replying to the attention whore
Who's the real retard here?

>>43739906
It is not a sixth color, stop saying that.

Being a new type of colorless mana doesn't make it a sixth color. If I have a card that says "this cost can only be paid by colorless mana produced by creatures", it isn't a new color of mana. This is exactly like that, just rather than "produced by creatures" it is "produced by things using the <> symbol".

I know you really like the idea of <> being the new colorless mana symbol. It is a cool idea, I think it would be cool, but don't pretend that it is the only way this might be implemented.

>>43739910
its barry's land.

Also, for costs it acts as a specific colorless, i.e. must be payed with only colorless mana, as opposed to the generic colorless we had before which was payed with colorless or any color.


>>43739926
>Plains
>Swamp
>Island
>Forest
>Mountain
>Wastes left behind by Eldrazi consumption

FTFY

>>43738603
>Its more likely snow mana or even mana of any color, generic colored mana. That would also interact with converge
This is the first theory I've heard that just feels "right" to me. <> is a type of colorless mana; <> in a cost can be paid by <> or any one of WUBRG. EDH gets its colorless basic, wizards gets to make kozilek that doesn't just get trivially cast by tower tower mine powerplant, and there's no need for gigantic errata.

>>43739970
>its barry's land.
This isn't even remotely true, stop saying it

>>43739970
>its barry's land.
No, it isn't.

If you knew even the most basic details of Barry's Land, you wouldn't say that.

it's the closest thing to Barry's land that will ever be fit to print.

>>43732007
I've been grilling MaRo on blogatog, but he hasn't answered yet

>>43739494
Emrakul the aeons torn <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
wrapping around the sides. I'd pay for that as an alter

>>43739060
There is a land that explicitly taps for new mana. If your theory is correct, it would just tap for 1 and not need to tap for new mana

This is a great idea that was executed terribly in one of the clunkiest blocks released in quite awhile. I respect their decision to create Wastes and Kozilek in such an interesting way, but why is it being introduced in the small set of a two block set. There is no reason not to introduce it in the main set, since ingest, devoid abd processors are all terrible cards with little to no interesting interaction. Literally every processor trigger is terrible, in creativity if not function, that plays out as colored cards just being colorless "because factions!"

Process a card---> Get colored effect. Oh, but, the card itself is still colorless guys. And they're all over costed as hell, too. 4 mana for a 3/2 in blue that bounces a card if you're running a bunch of shitty cards that are all terrible....or you could pay 4 mana for a 2/2 in blue that bounces for free (compare Eldrazi Generic Bounce guy to Void mage Bounce Guy from Origins).

And I get that Ulamog's Entire Schick is that he eats things and doesn't stop eating. That's cool and all, but that concept is executed so poorly. It's just another example of Wizards creating a flavor reason to shit out boring cards that do nothing interesting. Instead of "processing", why not utilize the AMOUNT OF exiling as a way to utilize bonuses and effects? Like a cycle of Ulamog's Whatever in each color that focuses on exiling a certain card type the color enjoys using, to show the bizarre utilization of effects the Eldrazi have on their consumed prey? I could go on, but I've already strayed from my initial premise.

Wastes should've been in the first set. That way, instead of 10ish cards in Oath, we actually have a decent clip. Play with costs, make weird effects, lay the bones down in BfZ. Expand on it in OGW. Make the Eldrazi an actual unique entity, not block variation 75. This entire thing is a great way to have a pop in pop out threat
When Wastes show up, Eldrazi show up.

>>43740211
No, if his theory is correct all instances of tapping for (1) are gonna be written as tapping for <> in the future.

>>43740211

<> is the new symbol for (1)

>>43740247
>>43740252
>Nonbasic lands aren't allowed to tap for mana that isn't (1)

>>43739494
expect those 2 don't have to be payed by colorless, they can also be paid by colored mana.
its generic.
<> costs specifically colorless.

if its written the way it is on kozilek, it means that <> and (number) are different. Which means that <> is not generic mana.

>>43740278
This exactly. Wastes must tap for <> -- a colorless type of mana, which in a mana cost requires its own symbol. <> can also pay for generic mana just as any other color. It acts like a 6th color without introducing a purple to imbalance the color pie philosophically and mechanically.

>>43740278

how can anyone not understand this

I'm not sure a which if any of the theories about the pointy goatse lands is correct, but watching people repeatedly fail to comprehend simple explanations of what we think it might be has convinced me that the NWO is absolutely nessecary.

>>43736613
>no indestructible
it's shit

>>43739817
planar chaos purple purple reasons
also, to emphasize how much the eldrazi are wrecking things. its flavor as much as game mechanics.

>>43740365
Kozilek wasn't indestructible before and now he has a built in way to protect himself, what more could you want?

>>43740240
Processors and devoid are just there for limited. And they do work in limited. They are super important.

And devoid is the same thing as colored artifacts. Designwise, the cards are clearly colored, but being colorless helps with the RB and UR limited archetype. That's all.

>>43740175
except emrakul takes 10 generic. colorless or colored.

<> means specifically specifically colored, otherwise NewKozilek's casting cost would be written different.

>>43740275
>T: <><>

done.

>>43731149
Is that just a fuckton of bismuth?

>>43740403
oh yeah, I forgot.

I took a break from Magic for a long time and missed the original Zendikar block. I just assumed all the titans were indestructible.

>>43740433
>There are people in this thread right now that will actually believe this

>>43740240
we've still got half a block left.

since Kozilek's schtick is distortion, what do you think we will have?

>>43740240
>When Wastes show up, Eldrazi show up.
other way around, actually.
Eldrazi make wastes

>>43739836
There is nothing else that makes sense. It has to be a {S}-like symbol but for colorless mana rather than mana from a snow source.

>>43740481
well whats wrong with it, nigga?
stop greentexting and respond.

They should had used a potatoe for waste

>>43740507
Because (<>) is an OGW-only thing, the eldrazi-flavored nonbasics like Mirror Pool will tap for (<>) just like Wastes do. No changes or errata will be made to existing cards that tap for (1) or other instances of non-colored mana.

>>43740240
You could also still give each Titan their unique theme with Wastes mana. Kozilek can do his bending allegiances thing by having Waste mana tied to controlling effects, counters of abilities or even shifting land control through the manipulation of color identities.

Ulamog's Waste theme could be destruction, brutal combat tricks and combat oriented use of Wastes mana. This would also help keep the war theme going for Zendikar. Maybe some odd fight effects tied together with Scion propagation. Also, I don't understand why Scions don't burst themselves FOR ELDRAZI MANA since they are literally Eldrazi summoner buddies.

For Emrakul, I unno, that's the problem when you ape Eldritc horrors in a card game, in that how do you create a faction of unknowably powerful beings that destroy matter just by existence.

Anyway, the inclusion of Wastes mama us a good idea that has been stymied and squandered by Wizards fear of disappointing it's market research team and it's fans. By trying to appeal to everyone they rush out a product that is predictable, stale and boring while leaving the actually interesting effects as these one shot experiments that please everyone but show up again in 5 years when nobody cares.

Hell, I'd rather have anything over Ingest and Converge. Just seemed like terrible mechanics to sell a story that, frankly, doesn't need to be told in this manner.

>>43740507
As long as we're doing stupid stuff, I want an enchantment that reinstates manaburn.

All players lose life equal to the unspent mana left in their mana pool.

would really shrek those Nykthos and Extraplanar Lens / Caged Sun users.

>>43740585
>Because (<>) is an OGW-only thing
sauce

>>43740585

They would not print an entirely new basic land for a one off like that, but go ahead and hold onto that belief if it makes you feel better.

>>43740622
It's not stupid, it's great. I wish they'd print something like
"Whenever an amount of mana leaves a player's mana pool without being spent, ~ deals that much damage to that player."

>>43740650
>>43740635
>shadow over innistrad
>shadows over innsmouth
>emrakul is missing from zendikar
>who's the shadow?

>>43740650
>He thinks Wizards is above one-and-done gimmicky mechanics
Why wouldn't they? They've done it plenty of times before

>>43731985
>Why should eldritch horrors and man-made objects share a color identity?

They both share the quality of being removed from the motivations and philosophy of the natural color pie. Ugin is colorless because he is also removed, but I think the idea with his character is that it's because he's achieved some manner of enlightenment that places his perspective beyond the limits of the color pie.

>>43740668
>Even more Eldrazi ruining yet another beloved block
Please no

>>43740497
Basically what I meant was that when the card Wastes shows up in a set, that's how you know the Eldrazi are making an appearance. Tie their existence to a spreading plague of corrupted lands and make it a central part of their identity. Not the following.

Ulamog's brood : they mill things and utilize generic color effects by pooping out the mulled things. And some of them care about sacrifice effects sometimes, but other times, they care about counters or power matters or tutoring things.

Kozilek, obviously isn't a known quotient at the time, but his theme seems to be manipulator of mana and spell work. Which is way more streamlined than Ulamog's own brood, by a country mile. Of course, OGW could drop the ball horribly too. Or make BfZ retroactively better. I'm just sharing my opinion on their mechanics and stuff

>>43731985
they are both outside the natural order of things, therefore outside the color pie.

>>43733370
No. Nothing has ever had a cost in colorless mana before. People being as confused as you is one of the best reasons for adding this symbol to the game.

>>43740672
They also made Prowess evergreen IMMEDIATELY after the block it debuted in.

>>43736505
then does ghostfire change cost?

>>43740753
One mechanic out of hundreds does not a precedent set

>>43740672
I didn't say they were above one and done gimmicks.

I said that a one off unique basic land would not be one of them.

>>43733701
>2: therefore, all lands which would be able to tap for it need erratra

No, they don't. They need a templating change. This is very different from errata. It's no different than changing the card frames.

>>43740748
there's nothing that said "this card's casting cost can only be payed for with colorless mana"?


I mean certainly not half generic, half specifically colorless like we see on kozilek's cost.

but nothing that said "only colorless?"
that seems... odd.

>>43740785
Yeah? Is that why you see Snow lands everywhere?

>>43740780
It does when MaRo just talked about entering another "new age" of magic design in the article that announced it.

>>43740796
you do in EDH.

>>43740796

A swamp with some snow on it is still a swamp, champ.

>>43740793
there are rarely enough sources to provide explicitly colorless mana for that to really be viable in limited, or even standard. you'd need something like a basic that makes colorless mana.

>>43740707
>War For Phyrexia
>Steel Eternities
>Final Dawn

>Forgotten Gods
>Void Pantheon
>War of Eternities

>Attack on Ravnica
>Unification of Ravnica
>Jace vs Eldrazi

>Urza's Sins
>Urza's Resurrection
>Urza's Grand Slam

>Alpha Assault
>Return to Beta
>Limited Masters

>>43740414
Literally nothing in your post is correct

>>43740834
But it's an entirely new type of basic land! Surely wizards wouldn't just introduce it and only use it twice in 20 years!

>>43740852
Someone get this man a job at WotC, he knows how to make things fun.

>>43740856
less talk more refute.

explain why NewKozilek's casting cost doesn't mean exactly that?

>>43740859
It isn't a type of basic land though. That's the point.

>>43740611
Ingest was not originally keyworded, development gave it a name. It is not designed as a marquee mechanic, it is just a processor enabler. It only got a keyword because it otherwise would a wordy mechanic on a lot of cards.

Converge was designed to be the UG archetype and to emphasize "colored factions" fighting "colorless" factions.

I know it is easy to get it into your head that if something has its own name or
keyword, it has to be something beyond limited archetypes, but that's not the case. Look at Renown.

The dev team figured out that players need names for things, so we are gonna get a lot more names for shit that is designed solely for limited. Not every mechanic is going to be as revolutionary as Flashback or Cascade. You can't expect it to be.

As far as I know, the only premier mechanic this set has is Landfall. Which is to be expected of a return to zendikar.

>>43740852
>urza's grand slam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9FImc2LOr8

>>43740852
>>Alpha Assault
>>Return to Beta
>>Limited Masters
clever.

And probably all correct if I had to guess.

>>43738413
anon

that'll be like

months

who the fuck told you 4chan was a patient community

unless it was in the context of "mental patient" they were lying

>>43740887
Emrakul costs 15 you fucking scrub

>Kozis costs implies colored mana
>eldrazi have always been colorless
>card is clearly colorless
>obviously wizards is making eldrazi snow mana and not "colorless only mana" costs

File: image.jpg (47KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 223x310px

>>43740175
>wrapping around the sides
no. there is only one acceptable way to put fifteen mana symbols in a creature's cost.

>>43740934
>implying snow mana isn't colorless.

>>43740859
>But it's an entirely new type of basic land!

no, it's not. it's a swamp with a special feature. kind of neat, but not something new.

if the new basic was named "ruined swamp" and had the "basic ruined land - swamp" type and some sort of crazy symbol I would lend much more credence to the it's a gimmick theory.

As is, it looks like this is a new symbol that means colorless.

>>43740611
>Also, I don't understand why Scions don't burst themselves FOR ELDRAZI MANA since they are literally Eldrazi summoner buddies

They do. They burst for <>

>>43740951
Snow mana is never generated as a symbol, it is "any mana generated by a snow permanent"

>>43740135
He won't. Either WotC is pissed about this and has forbidden employees from contributing and thereby "vindicating" the leak, or else (far more likely) this was intentional and his job is to remain silent to fuel speculation and, therefore, interest.

>>43740951
>implying snow mana isn't colorless.

It's not. It's generic you faggot. Learn the difference.

>>43740977
yet it has a symbol.

also, this is clearly not snow mana, as its not a special kind of W/U/B/etc. its its own thing.

>>43741004
so, they wanted to see how we'd react, so they can know whether to keep designing in that direction?

>>43740852
Am I the only one bothered by how this post ignores the new 2-s per block paradigm?

>>43740135
All Hasbro Employees are under indefinite Non Disclosure Agreements regarding the details of any product that have not been revealed to the public officially.

>>43741042
no, because I'm used to 3 per block.

your allw rong

>>43741004
wotc has had a standing policy not to confirm or deny any unofficial spoilers, ever.

>>43741050
so what you're saying is, he's been canned and sued, unless this was intentional.

>>43741057
fine then, tripfag. explain your thoughts.

>>43741042
Yes.

>>43741034
No, almost certainly not. It's too late for them to change the design now. If they wanted that kind of hint, they'd have needed to drop the mockups in packs of Conspiracy or something.

If the leak was intentional, and it probably was, it was all about hype. And it's succeeding.

>>43741078
That is exactly what I'm saying. And since I don't see any twitter accounts abuzz about being sacked from WotC, I say it was an intentional leak, just like all of the "oh, look what randomly showed up in my booster of the previous set" leaks.

>>43741042
>Rise of Folly
>Return to Reddit

>>43741022
It looks like it is a special kind of colorless.

>>43741126
It's colored colorless mana.

>>43741042
no, it bugged me too

>>43741144
>Colored colorless
People like you are the reason Devoid is a named mechanic.

>>43741170
its colorless that acts like a color in every way.

colorless is now its own color.

>>43741200
but wait

white is already an absence of color

oh god

what has science done

>>43741120
reddit... really anon?
>Scars of Reply
>Shards of Originality

>>43741225
white is still a pigment.
we're talking CLEAR

>>43741225
that activated my autism in ways i hadn't felt for months.

>>43741234
>Khans of Seriously Being This Mad

File: Appreciation.gif (745KB, 266x173px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 266x173px

>>43741254
you're welcome