|
Seriously I don't know why this was ever a question. When a land produces ♦ it produces "one colorless" (previously a 1 in a circle) If a card has ♦ in its cost, ♦ can only be paid for with colorless mana. The only question is if (3) becomes ♦♦♦ or not.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:We've already cards that includes both numbers and ♦ in their cost, so that basically has to be what it means. I hope they ship game stores like 400 'wastes', or whatever the new colorless basic is, with the prerelease package.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Devor posted:I hope they ship game stores like 400 'wastes', or whatever the new colorless basic is, with the prerelease package. It's been confirmed that basic land packs are being shipped with the pre-release bundles for each player. I have no doubt that wastes will be included in the pack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:Seriously I don't know why this was ever a question. Probably not. That would be a huge sweeping errata on basically every artifact ever printed. It's just a way to make the eldrazi into "woooooOOOOoooo colorless" things. The numbers in circles have always been any mana so they probably can't suddenly make basalt monolith cost ♦♦♦ because it would become really hard to cast suddenly without weakening your manabase. This could allow them to do neat things with better equipment now, maybe skullclamp isn't quite so busted if you have to run colorless producing lands. Who am I kidding, skullclamp remains busted under those circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Well... duh? That's literally the entire point. Honestly no real reasons. I just like the numbers. I wonder if ♦ will become an evergreen stance and Wastes will be the fabled 6th baisc land or if it's only a gimick thing for BFZ block and only cards in said block will have the ♦ printed on them or have ♦ mana costed cards. Gridlocked fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
I feel like turning (1) into ♦ is really needlessly loving with stuff that new players may not easily grasp all for the sake of a gimmick that's way less cool than they think. Everything about the Eldrazi this go around feels very "yeah, so?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
/\/\/\: I think it's mostly about clarifyingthe distinction between colorless mana (produced by stuff) and generic mana (in costs).Olothreutes posted:Probably not. That would be a huge sweeping errata on basically every artifact ever printed. It's just a way to make the eldrazi into "woooooOOOOoooo colorless" things. The numbers in circles have always been any mana so they probably can't suddenly make basalt monolith cost ♦♦♦ because it would become really hard to cast suddenly without weakening your manabase. This could allow them to do neat things with better equipment now, maybe skullclamp isn't quite so busted if you have to run colorless producing lands. They were more likely referring to things that produce {3}, like Urza's Tower, which should now produce ♦♦♦. Not to making things that cost {3} cost ♦♦♦. That would be incredibly stupid. It would be a HUGE functional change to thousands of cards to change "generic costs" to "requires colorless" and they don't do functional changes anymore. The change of "Add {1} to your mana pool." to "Add {D} to your mana pool." si something that doesn't change anything except what they can design using that as another game balancing restriction. Cernunnos fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
♦ is actually more consistent than the current system. It will help new players in the long run.Cernunnos posted:They were more likely referring to things that produce {3}, like Urza's Tower, which should now produce ♦♦♦. Not to making things that cost {3} cost ♦♦♦. That would be incredibly stupid
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:♦ is actually more consistent than the current system. It will help new players in the long run. Assuming caring about colorless is not evergreen, I would much rather have one line of reminder text "♦ cannot be paid with colored mana" instead of errata-ing these new (old?) eternal-playable lands to produce the new symbol that is never going to be relevant again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
If ♦ costs don't become an Evergreen thing that shows up on at least one card each set then Wizards has no business making this game anymore because that's just trowing away good design space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Wow it's really cool to see so many people from R&D in here posting spoilers from future sets!!! I think it's pretty silly that you've now 100% confirmed that ♦️will never be in any set but this one and errata'ing lands to include it will never ever have a reason! Seriously, if you think that they'd change how colorless mana is represented just for one set you are off of your rocker. Nehru the Damaja posted:I feel like turning (1) into ♦ is really needlessly loving with stuff that new players may not easily grasp all for the sake of a gimmick that's way less cool than they think. Actually no, it makes it 100% easier for newer players because no one is going to ask if the {3} in a mana cost means you need something that taps for {3} or three things that tap for {1} exactly. GonSmithe fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Devor posted:Assuming caring about colorless is not evergreen, I would much rather have one line of reminder text "♦ cannot be paid with colored mana" instead of errata-ing these new (old?) eternal-playable lands to produce the new symbol that is never going to be relevant again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Actually no, it makes it 100% easier for newer players because no one is going to ask if the {3} in a mana cost means you need something that taps for {3} or three things that tap for {1} exactly. Or if {3}R means 3 Red. Although the question of space on cards then comes up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted:Source for those of us who are curious?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:....huh. That's...a thing. There's 20 expeditions in OTG, which is a strong indicator that there won't be any enemy colored Battle Lands, although there are a couple of 5 land cycles that potentially make sense to use as Expeditions (Scars lands and Future Sight lands).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Actually no, it makes it 100% easier for newer players because no one is going to ask if the {3} in a mana cost means you need something that taps for {3} or three things that tap for {1} exactly. I'm not sure what kind of new player it is that intuits the meaning of some abstract symbol whose purpose is some dull throwaway mechanic they'll never see again but then somehow says "BUT NONE OF MY LANDS HAVE A 3 ON THEM  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:There's 20 expeditions in OTG, which is a strong indicator that there won't be any enemy colored Battle Lands, although there are a couple of 5 land cycles that potentially make sense to use as Expeditions (Scars lands and Future Sight lands). Future Sight lands make zero sense since then we'd have two versions of Graven Cairns. Lack of enemy colored battlelands makes the most sense, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Future Sight lands make zero sense since then we'd have two versions of Graven Cairns. Good point!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:Probably not. That would be a huge sweeping errata on basically every artifact ever printed. It's just a way to make the eldrazi into "woooooOOOOoooo colorless" things. The numbers in circles have always been any mana so they probably can't suddenly make basalt monolith cost ♦♦♦ because it would become really hard to cast suddenly without weakening your manabase. This could allow them to do neat things with better equipment now, maybe skullclamp isn't quite so busted if you have to run colorless producing lands. Jesus Christ again, no, the question is not if they will make (3) in a cost become ♦♦♦, it's if Basalt Monolith will tap for ♦♦♦ or (3) e; Also my guess on the 20 is 10 filter lands, 5 enemy battle lands, and the 5 future sight lands (horizon canopy "cycle") with the 5th land being replaced by something Skyl3lazer fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:Jesus Christ again, no, the question is not if they will make (3) in a cost become ♦♦♦, it's if Basalt Monolith will tap for ♦♦♦ or (3) Yeah, sorry. Totally misread that one. It does make sense for future printings to use the new format, and I suspect we'll see it a lot in commander products and the like with new sol rings and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Tomb of urami
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Instead of printing the entire future sight cycle, just put Grove on the sheet twice and Canopy three times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Put me down for a guess on 10 filters and 10 manlands being the Expeditions. My cube is going to be so sad about not having the 5 enemy battlelands though 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
I don't think they'd do enemy battlelands/oathlands, it would be insane to get all colours off any fetch. Plus Innistrad already has enemy lands associated with it. The enemy check lands with the battle lands could lead to interesting interplay and make land challenging again. ^^ hadn't occurred to me that manlands become a 10-pair cycle with Oath, that could be a good call.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I'm not sure what kind of new player it is that intuits the meaning of some abstract symbol whose purpose is some dull throwaway mechanic they'll never see again but then somehow says "BUT NONE OF MY LANDS HAVE A 3 ON THEM
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:It's simple and intuitive compared to the current system, where numbers in grey circles mean completely different things depending on where they are. What are those different things? I think it's simpler the current way, personally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Whena card says that it's adding (1) to your mana pool it is adding "colorless mana". When a card has (1) in its cost that means "mana of any color". All the new system does is introduce a new symbol for colorless mana to properly separate these concepts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:How about you just stop and actually think about it? Under the new system the ♦ symbol is just like the other 5 types of mana you produce, it's just that (outside of OGW, presumably) it doesn't appear in costs. It's simple and intuitive compared to the current system, where numbers in grey circles mean completely different things depending on where they are. I've stopped correcting people when they go, "Diamond mana is stupid! Because..." BECAUSE their reasoning is always piles of bad assumptions built on piles of lovely logic built on a mountain of misunderstanding of how even rudimentary fundamentals of Magic rules work. This Diamond mana design is one of the most elegant things Wizards has ever come up with, provided it works like we logically assume it does, but no one is going to understand it until they play with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
DurdleDuck posted:Put me down for a guess on 10 filters and 10 manlands being the Expeditions. A friend and I were discussing it Friday and figured they probably won't happen in Oath because the mana would be insane but they might put them in SOI since Fetches (and the insane 4 color goodstuff decks) will be gone then. Thinking more about it though it'd be really sour to only have 5 of the Battlelands as Expeditions. Maybe Filters, Enemy Battlelands, and Scars Fastlands as the Expeditions and they print some actual good greedy manabase hate in Oath. Suppression Field would reign things in a lot without being the best thing you can play (12 Fetch decks don't look so hot when you can't fetch). Blood Moon is another alternative but probably won't happen. Ghost Quarters is unlikely to see print because it doesn't really mesh with Zendikar flavor but Tectonic Edge would work. Or they could just go whole hog and reprint Wasteland. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Whena card says that it's adding (1) to your mana pool it is adding "colorless mana". When a card has (1) in its cost that means "mana of any color". All the new system does is introduce a new symbol for colorless mana to properly separate these concepts. When a card says that it's adding (1) to your mana pool, you can only use it to pay for (numbers). Any color can be used to pay for (numbers) too. What color is diamond? Gray? I'm using WBURG+Gray to pay for my Bring to Light with Thalia on the board, why isn't Converge=6? Keeping colorless without a symbol to me makes it clearer that it is not like colored mana. BJPaskoff posted:I've stopped correcting people when they go, "Diamond mana is stupid! Because..." BECAUSE their reasoning is always piles of bad assumptions built on piles of lovely logic built on a mountain of misunderstanding of how even rudimentary fundamentals of Magic rules work. This Diamond mana design is one of the most elegant things Wizards has ever come up with, provided it works like we logically assume it does, but no one is going to understand it until they play with it. I'm not sure that "correcting" is the right word for expressing an opinion. Devor fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Devor posted:When a card says that it's adding (1) to your mana pool, you can only use it to pay for (numbers). Any color can be used to pay for (numbers) too. quote:What color is diamond? Gray? I'm using WBURG+Gray to pay for my Bring to Light with Thalia on the board, why isn't Converge=6? Colorless is not a color.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Force of will already has this system. This is just catching up to design space that's already present. It's good game design and it works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
What color is snow? That's loving ridiculous, snow isn't a color, it's a loving ripoff that I can't use five different basic lands and five different snow basics to get sunburst = 10 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Nope. Nope nope nope. I've been playing since 1996-7, and I refuse to believe this Mystic Gate horseshit. If it's true, I'll be pissed off - it just seems so drat unnecessary. (I'm not deluded enough to throw a tantrum and say that I'm quitting Magic forever though, it's still too much fun for that.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Devor posted:When a card says that it's adding (1) to your mana pool, you can only use it to pay for (numbers). Any color can be used to pay for (numbers) too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Admiral posted:Nope. Nope nope nope. ???  The card's existed for 7 years now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:So I guess forests should also tap for (1), since you can use green mana to pay generic costs Under your proposed system that includes diamonds, players must understand that G can be used to pay for (1) on a card, so no, that would be a functional change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Admiral posted:Nope. Nope nope nope. When I first saw Magic cards (a heck of a long time ago, maybe not quite 1996) mana was this strange new mystical term that conveyed a sense of wonder. I imagined my wizard actually reaching out to the Basalt Monolith and drawing forth its great flows of stored energy. What I'm saying is that Wizards has, slowly and by degrees, pissed on any meaning that the nature of mana had for me so now I'm pretty much down with whatever makes it a little bit more mechanically elegant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
The magic and wonder of a number in a grey circle
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Cernunnos posted:??? Sorry, I know the card is a reprint, I was referring to the change from representing one colourless mana as (1) to <>, and the implications of this change. Edit: I'm also aware of the difference between a mana producer producing one colourless, vs an (x) in a casting cost requiring (x) of any colour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:33
|
|