|
Irony Be My Shield posted:The magic and wonder of a number in a grey circle I changed my mind, I'm now against the change solely because Gemstone Mine is now a flavor fail, as it cannot produce diamond mana
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
More like Mystic GAYte amiriteIrony Be My Shield posted:The magic and wonder of a number in a grey circle Actually, I think it was one of the old ones that said "TAP TO ADD THREE COLORLESS MANA TO YOUR MANA POOL" (caps mine to better convey the sense of wonder those words created in my wide, youthful eyes). At the very least, it was one of the Legends tap symbol ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Actually, I think it was one of the old ones that said "TAP TO ADD THREE COLORLESS MANA TO YOUR MANA POOL" (caps mine to better convey the sense of wonder those words created in my wide, youthful eyes).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Admiral 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. You mean the difference meaning gently caress all for any card printed before 2016? The only cards this actually impacts are new cards, this just changes how some old cards interact with those new cards. Why don't you pick something better to be mad over, like BfZ being incredibly mediocre? TheKingofSprings fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Have they ever made this kind of errata mid-block before?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Admiral 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. The change is really just to make the distinction between Generic Mana in costs (the {3} in a spell or ability that costs {3}{R}) and the Colorless Mana that lands/artifacts/a-small-number-of-creatures produce (Sol Ring, the Blighted Lands in Standard right now) more apparent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Bring back  or I am going to quit magic
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Have they ever made this kind of errata mid-block before? Does Shadowmoor count? Even then, this is a functional change on exactly zero cards - all cards which use generic mana will continue to use generic mana, and all cards which produce any amount of colorless mana will continue to produce exactly that amount of colorless mana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Niton posted:Does Shadowmoor count? Even then, this is a functional change on exactly zero cards - all cards which use generic mana will continue to use generic mana, and all cards which produce any amount of colorless mana will continue to produce exactly that amount of colorless mana. It's not even as though this is the first time they've changed the templating for producing colorless mana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Niton posted:Does Shadowmoor count? Even then, this is a functional change on exactly zero cards - all cards which use generic mana will continue to use generic mana, and all cards which produce any amount of colorless mana will continue to produce exactly that amount of colorless mana. The closest thing I can think of is when they started adding foils to packs in Urza's Legacy. It's the kind of templating/card-aesthetic change they've historically bundled in with fall sets and core sets. Doing it in a small winter set is striking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Niton posted:Does Shadowmoor count? Even then, this is a functional change on exactly zero cards - all cards which use generic mana will continue to use generic mana, and all cards which produce any amount of colorless mana will continue to produce exactly that amount of colorless mana. I'm curious whether Eye of Ugin will reduce the diamond cost or generic cost. Edit: It must reduce the generic. I wish we knew the right word that they're going to be pushing for this so we don't have to keep saying diamond. Devor fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:You mean the difference meaning gently caress all for any card printed before 2016? The only cards this actually impacts are new cards, this just changes how some old cards interact with those new cards. But I liked BfZ? (This is MTG, people get mad over stupid poo poo all the time. I guess it's just my turn to be that guy.) Also, I was kind of psyched about the idea that cards like new Kozilek would have to rely on a new kind of mana to generate the <> parts. Knowing that it's just regular colourless is kind of a downer. Edit: Jesus Christ, I just realised that I'm only seven days away from having been on SA for fifteen years Admiral fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted: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. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't they print enemy battlelands in SoI and still include them as expeditions in OGW? It would mean they'd need the art and final names done earlier than usual, but for 5 cards that doesn't seem unreasonable (especially since they presumably ordered all the expedition art in the same batch). And since expeditions don't expand Standard playability, they wouldn't be Standard legal until SoI officially launches. They would (I think?) be Modern/Legacy/Vintage playable, but I don't think battlelands have made any impact there at all, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
I am content with this change. This is all I feel about the matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Devor posted:I'm curious whether Eye of Ugin will reduce the diamond cost or generic cost. It'll be the Generic cost. And it'll still reduce the cost of New Kozilek. It just won't make him easier to cast (on a technical level. The only people playing Eye of Ugin are playing Tron so they'll have all the {D} they could ever need if they do end up playing him.) Cernunnos fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't they print enemy battlelands in SoI and still include them as expeditions in OGW? It would mean they'd need the art and final names done earlier than usual, but for 5 cards that doesn't seem unreasonable (especially since they presumably ordered all the expedition art in the same batch). And since expeditions don't expand Standard playability, they wouldn't be Standard legal until SoI officially launches. They would (I think?) be Modern/Legacy/Vintage playable, but I don't think battlelands have made any impact there at all, right? They could do that, yes. It'd just be very weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
JerryLee posted: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. playing a game as a kid is different then as an adult, that's normal you know
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:playing a game as a kid is different then as an adult, that's normal you know Yeah, but it's hard. It's hard and nobody understands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
I'm excited for a 6 colour limited environment, personally. And new playables for Tron, everyone's favourite deck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
This change is easily made retro active and opens up a lot of new design space. I for one approve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Balon posted:This change is easily made retro active and opens up a lot of new design space. I for one approve. Me too, and if it opens them up to printing good equipment and artifacts again outside of dedicated artifacts-matters blocks, I'm even more for it. Admiral posted:Edit: Jesus Christ, I just realised that I'm only seven days away from having been on SA for fifteen years I will join you in the SA Nursing Home in a couple of weeks, fellow old-timer. Oh, the things we've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
The only even vaguely legitimate complaint about the colorless symbol is that it's weird as gently caress to implement it in the middle of a block. Kozilek's Channeler can produce mana to cast Kozilek within the same limited environment except you can't actually tell by the card. I imagine even that is irrelevant. Also stop getting your hopes up for Enemy Battlelands it's not happening. The other 10 are probably just the manlands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Is it just me or do the white mana symbols not look centered in that mystic gate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:The only even vaguely legitimate complaint about the colorless symbol is that it's weird as gently caress to implement it in the middle of a block. Kozilek's Channeler can produce mana to cast Kozilek within the same limited environment except you can't actually tell by the card. Yeah it's going to be weird as hell for new players at the pre-re having lands side by side that say "T: Add 1" and "T: Add ♦". Unless WOTC has a second printing of BfZ ready to go with all the cards changed over I just don't get why they did this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Admiral posted:But I liked BfZ? If it makes you feel better: Most of the lands widely agreed on to be Magic's most powerful (Fetchlands, Original Duals and Shocks, as well as Battle Lands) do nothing to help you cast any cards with Colorless mana costs, so you will have to change the construction of your mana base to accommodate Colorless cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
The genius part of the change to using the diamond mana symbol (assuming it works the way we think it works) is that everyone who is complaining will be fine, they know the rules and will easily understand the new way, whereas the people who will benefit are those that actually need it. The colorless/generic confusion has been a problem for every new player I've taught the rules to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:The only even vaguely legitimate complaint about the colorless symbol is that it's weird as gently caress to implement it in the middle of a block. Kozilek's Channeler can produce mana to cast Kozilek within the same limited environment except you can't actually tell by the card. "just the manlands"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Niton posted:If it makes you feel better: Most of the lands widely agreed on to be Magic's most powerful (Fetchlands, Original Duals and Shocks, as well as Battle Lands) do nothing to help you cast any cards with Colorless mana costs, so you will have to change the construction of your mana base to accommodate Colorless cards. Most lands period don't let you do that, particularly basics. If ♦ cards are actually good there's a decent chance you could see mana bases scaled back from the current 4/5 color super-greed to run painlands. TheKingofSprings posted:"just the manlands" I just mean its the most obvious choice vs. 2 random sets of 5. I don't really give a gently caress about enemy BFZ Duals, though; I'm a lot more interested in enemy Scars fastlands seeing print because those actually see play in Modern and its dumb that, for example, Jund can have Blackcleave Cliffs to Inquisition/Thoughtseize turn 1, but Junk doesn't have a W/B or G/B fastland. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Yeah if there are incentives to run colorless-producing lands in the new set, it's a direct attack on the fetch/dual manabases everyone uses now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Most lands period don't let you do that. If ♦ cards are actually good there's a decent chance you could see mana bases scaled back from the current 4/5 color super-greed to run painlands. That's the point - if they're smart enough to keep {D} evergreen, they've found a way to permanently claw back against the power of 4C/5C manabases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Admiral posted:I'm not deluded enough to throw a tantrum Too late
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Niton posted:That's the point - if they're smart enough to keep {D} evergreen, they've found a way to permanently claw back against the power of 4C/5C manabases. I guess we'll need to see ♦ cards to know. If Kozilek is the best one, then its probably going to be irrelevant because I'm not sure you'd really want Kozilek over Ulamog most of the time since the deck that runs Ulamog right now is a ramp deck that's almost always behind on board when it casts Ulamog. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:Seriously I don't know why this was ever a question. It should. Tron should be T: ♦ if you control urza's mine, powerplant and tower, add ♦♦♦
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
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. Basalt Monolith will not cost ♦♦♦ but it will say Tap: Add ♦♦♦ You can play it with 3 mana of any color, but it only produces colorless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
I'm just looking forward to the broken legacy card that uses <> in a format of wastelands and cities of traitors, forcing them to dial back the effects and taking away the nice things again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:I'm just looking forward to the broken legacy card that uses <> in a format of wastelands and cities of traitors, forcing them to dial back the effects and taking away the nice things again. I don't think they give a poo poo, do they? Legacy isn't a consideration, and they'll just ban if they go overboard. If they cared about non-Standard formats at all, Delve would never have gotten the nod to return.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Niton posted:I don't think they give a poo poo, do they? Legacy isn't a consideration, and they'll just ban if they go overboard. If they cared about non-Standard formats at all, Delve would never have gotten the nod to return. this exactly. They have an official policy of making the cards balanced for standard. They don't ignore the idea some cards will impact other constructed formats, but they figure "hey if its to good we ban it" It is exactly why they printed treasure cruise and dig through time. They're balanced just fine for standard, and they gave them a shot in other formats. They missed, so they fixed the problem. If they make some crazy eldrazi that costs ♦♦♦♦♦ and says "all lands tap for ♦ only" and it gives MUD a t2 bloodmoon and breaks legacy, they'll ban it. Also that card would be loving sweet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Niton posted:I don't think they give a poo poo, do they? Legacy isn't a consideration, and they'll just ban if they go overboard. If they cared about non-Standard formats at all, Delve would never have gotten the nod to return. Delve was supercool and a great model for injecting cards into eternal. If they take what they learned from KTK/FRF and apply it to more delve cards it will be an easy way to add cool cards to shake up those formats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Exactly. They'll ban the fun cards. Delve was fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Exactly. They'll ban the fun cards. Delve was fine. I, too, enjoyed having zero playable blue decks in legacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:48
|
|
