|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Why does Mirrorpool "T:♦" specifically if ♦ is just "pay me with colorless!" It may just be the same as "Tap for 1" or it's like Snow mana.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Why does Mirrorpool "T:♦" specifically if ♦ is just "pay me with colorless!" Maybe it's pay for any kind of mana of a colorless spell, which would solve devoid issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Why does Mirrorpool "T:♦" specifically if ♦ is just "pay me with colorless!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Why does Mirrorpool "T:♦" specifically if ♦ is just "pay me with colorless!" ♦ may be a new symbol that means "colorless." So, older lands might get errata'd to have "T: ♦"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Seems like a waste of an opportunity for a sixth mana type if it's strictly Eldrazi based. From a design perspective you wouldn't be able to do much with it for non-eldrazi sets, and overall the pool would just be too small for it to do much elsewhere- just like snow mana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:♦ may be a new symbol that means "colorless." Thran Dynamo: Tap to add ♦♦♦ to your mana pool. Actually, that's one of the better counterarguments I can think of for this being introduced now. Having the basic land only in small set is one thing, but it would seem really weird for the nomenclature about adding colorless to change in mid-block. If this is a new thing being introduced by the Eldrazi, then why do, like, the Blighted lands not produce ♦?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
EatinCake posted:Seems like a waste of an opportunity for a sixth mana type if it's strictly Eldrazi based. From a design perspective you wouldn't be able to do much with it for non-eldrazi sets, and overall the pool would just be too small for it to do much elsewhere- just like snow mana. But with every other set being a "return", there'll be plenty of more design exploration in eldrazi land
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Thran Dynamo: Tap to add ♦♦♦ to your mana pool. Overall, we don't know. Everything made a lot more sense before Mirrorpool was spoiled, the D mana being produced just made things whack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
I don't really see why they would make a card that specifically produces "Diamond" mana especially if the "diamond" mana is colorless. You already have basic lands that do that so it seems redundant. However, R&D seems stupid enough to make the "diamond" it's own mana source which can only be paid by using Waste lands and they end up not producing colorless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:♦ may be a new symbol that means "colorless." This isn't the kind of sweeping change they make in a small set to support at most two-dozen cards. Night Danger Moose posted:Because you can't pay that mana with a swamp or forest or island. You can pay for it with the colorless mana from a painland. They want colorless to have some sort of identity, rather than "hey any color can be used for this." So why does a land produce ♦ if ♦ is just a condition that R doesn't work but {1} does? Has a land ever produced "spend only black mana on X"? bhsman posted:It may just be the same as "Tap for 1" or it's like Snow mana. This is the second least nonsensical answer. (The most sensible is "they're fake.")
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:This isn't the kind of sweeping change they make in a small set to support at most two-dozen cards. I agree with you, I'm just trying to make sense of this nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
The 'bismuth-ification" is also on Kozilek's Sentinel as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Fun facts about colorless mana: the highest amount of colorless mana explicitly produced by a card is {4} (Rosheen Meanderer, Scorched Ruins, and Su-Chi) and the highest amount of colorless mana that exists in an ability cost is 20 (Spawnsire of Ulamog), but there are none from 11-19.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Wizards is creating these for Commander support. They have finally realized the one true format.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Also keep in mind that none of the fetchlands can find ♦, you'd need to play things like Evolving Wilds or Pilgrim's Eye to find a Wastes in Standard. They'd need to be incredibly highly powered cards to be worth running. In Limited, you'd have only half support for a ♦/x archetype in the BFZ pack. You'd be drafting two colors for the first two packs, and only one color in the last pack. You could just say that the whole mechanic is meant to be splashed, but that just seems really bad for (I assume) a major mechanic in Oath and would again need to be really powerful to be worth doing. It just seems far too parasitic to be worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Interestingly: "Wastes" is mostly plural. All other basic lands are singular. (Though, I suppose "the wastes" is arguable) Also, it's a basic land.. but it has no basic land type? Strange
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, even though these cards are probably fake, the artwork is going to be awesome whatever cards it ends up being on
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Basic lands have a "L" next to the collector number, they are not commons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Dr. Clockwork posted:Basic lands have a "L" next to the collector number, they are not commons. http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=121130
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
I think he means on the new frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Since the M15 frame change. Mythics didn't have an M next to the number before then either. E: Oreskos Swiftclaw was in the last 8th ed. frame set and in the first current frame set.   It has a C next to the collector's number in the M15 printing that isn't in JOU. Orange Fluffy Sheep fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Since the M15 frame change. Mythics didn't have an M next to the number before then either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Since the M15 frame change. Mythics didn't have an M next to the number before then either. Well, what I was observing was that their rarity was listed as Common. I didn't play during Coldsnap, but is that correct or is Gatherer lying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Myriad Truths posted:Well, what I was observing was that their rarity was listed as Common. I didn't play during Coldsnap, but is that correct or is Gatherer lying? you had to draft snow lands but I don't remember whether there was guaranteed 1 per pack
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Myriad Truths posted:Well, what I was observing was that their rarity was listed as Common. I didn't play during Coldsnap, but is that correct or is Gatherer lying? Snow-covered basics had the land rarity in Ice Age, but common rarity in Coldsnap. Basic lands are now the only lands that have the rarity "land".
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
So this could be the reason they're giving packs of full art basics in each prerelease box, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
I feel curmudgeony just looking at those cards and don't want them to be real. Maybe it's time to take a break if I'm getting cranky about cardboard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:This isn't the kind of sweeping change they make in a small set to support at most two-dozen cards. Well, it makes sense from an overall game perspective to split the idea of colorless and generic mana, though it's a pretty big visual change for such a small change to comprehension of cards. It seems like one of those "If we could start magic over" ideas rather than a thing that they could actually change now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
This is probably a function of compressing sets 2 & 3 into one set. Sure, this is definitely "big fall set" worthy, but they're completely redesigning what mechanics fit in the set paradigm now that it's being restructured. To me this seems like something that would have been splashy in the "Big 3rd Set" similar to Rise of the Eldrazi, but they spent so much time working on it, they shoved it into the small set. Plus the draft set being OGW/OGW/BFZ lends credibility. But yeah, it's weird. And I think "weird" is exactly how they're trying to make the Eldrazi feel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Lieutenant Centaur posted:I don't really see why they would make a card that specifically produces "Diamond" mana especially if the "diamond" mana is colorless. You already have basic lands that do that so it seems redundant. It makes a lot of sense if they want to print cards that specifically require colorless for part of the casting cost. A card with diamond in the cost means you can't use a forest for that diamond cost, you have to have some way of producing a colorless mana to pay the diamond cost. It makes sense here because colorless is a thing with eldrazi but colorless is a problem for the color pie. In BFZ they used devoid to get around the color pie problem, maybe in oath they give you ways to create colorless mana and cards where you must use colorless mana. Its still a color pie problem, but you'd have to weaken your mana base to gain access to this. Northjayhawk fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Looking at the art, it seems that the wastes are somehow tied to kozilek plot wise, so the big mechanical change halfway through the block could be meant to reinforce some big plot change that is happening alongside them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
yourdadsbestfriend posted:Also keep in mind that none of the fetchlands can find ♦, you'd need to play things like Evolving Wilds or Pilgrim's Eye to find a Wastes in Standard. They'd need to be incredibly highly powered cards to be worth running. I doubt diamond costs require waste, it probably just needs to be colorless mana. Something like a diamond symbol is needed to say that part of the cost MUST be colorless, {1} doesn't work, and it might be a good way to help new players on the waste land since they want full art land without text explaining that it produces colorless, and this will help them understand they can't use an island to pay diamond. Also, it makes those crappy colorless lands in BFZ with colored spell effects be a little better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
The more "evidence" people present as the Eldrazi mana being fake, the more I think that they're real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
If this is real, I really hope they use it well. I don't want another Snow Mana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:The more "evidence" people present as the Eldrazi mana being fake, the more I think that they're real. The most compelling evidence is that this art didn't exist on the internet until today, and the bismuth hints attached to kozilek.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Chamale posted:If this is real, I really hope they use it well. I don't want another Snow Mana. I could see them using this "mechanic" in future sets, could even be evergreen. Its general enough that it doesn't have to be a Kozilek thing, and it might solve a problem with artifacts. Artifacts have color pie issues, but if you can require colorless, then you can make stronger pie-infringing artifacts since you'd have to weaken your mana base to gain access to it. It would be a very big change in the rules if this becomes an every-set thing, but players can learn it, its intuitive, and seems to solve a long-standing problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
They look good (templating checks out) and the proposed errata-ing or colorless to ♦ is something I can see maybe happening but I'll stay skeptical until I see something official. If this is a thing I'm gonna be disappointed when they use "requires colorless mana" as an Eldrazi thing and then never use it anywhere ever again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Why does Mirrorpool "T:♦" specifically if ♦ is just "pay me with colorless!" Because they need to differentiate generic mana costs from colourless only mana costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Kozilek has been busy loving off in ~THE VOID~ or something, so it makes sense that his return would bring a whole lot of hosed up poo poo with it. That, along with the new art for Kozilek being new while also completely matching the style of the artist it's being credited toward and the general flavor of the bismuth thing associated with Kozilek, it's either real or a fake made by somebody close to WotC who is probably losing their job as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
However they're making diamond mana work I hate it so far. But I hated the idea of double-faced-cards when they were first spoiled and they turned out to be fine, so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:49
|
|
