[OGW] Wastes: Barry's Land is REAL?

[rpf5029]

I think this set will be completely useless to Vintage unless all previous colorless lands are pseudo errated to produce waste mana.  The former being much more likely.

I disagree. I'm reading the new mana symbols as "you must pay colorless mana," plus whatever.  Normal colorless mana can be paid with any color; this would be a way for people to spend specifically colorless, which the current symbol does not allow.

Pretty sure Shops would go coocoo for cocoapuffs if they could play Ancestrall off a Wasteland or Ancient Tomb.

[Protoaddict]

If we get spells like this that are of any real powerlevel, expect your stock in Sol ring and Mana crypts to skyrocket.

And one could always hope against hope, and its probably a pipe dream, for a Mox Bismuth. That would be impactful for vintage.

[lizardking1545]

I'm sure its an inside joke but can someone explain Barry's Land? 

[Aaron Patten]

I think this set will be completely useless to Vintage unless all previous colorless lands are pseudo errated to produce waste mana.  The former being much more likely.

I disagree. I'm reading the new mana symbols as "you must pay colorless mana," plus whatever.  Normal colorless mana can be paid with any color; this would be a way for people to spend specifically colorless, which the current symbol does not allow.

Pretty sure Shops would go coocoo for cocoapuffs if they could play Ancestrall off a Wasteland or Ancient Tomb.

You can certainly pay colourless costs with this new type of mana but I don't think you can pay this type of mana with colourless sources.  That would be sweet though.  Instead I think it's more like snow mana where you have to get it from that source and that source alone.  If you could pay <> with any colourless source then Wastes wouldn't have the <> mana type in it's text; it would just have the regular colourless symbol. 

[gkraigher]

I'm sure its an inside joke but can someone explain Barry's Land?  

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25

Mox Bismuth

+1000.  Give me Mox Bismuth right now!  Legendary would be fine. 

[TheMonadNomad]

Isn't this essentially just adding a sixth color to Magic?

[gkraigher]

No, it's not adding a 6th color, it's adding a 7th mana type.  

[zimagic]

Isn't this essentially just adding a sixth color to Magic?

Depending on what they actually do with it (because everything is speculation up to now) but it seems like it's essentially a formatting change to add a symbol that requires you to use actual colorless mana rather than generic mana.

I'm wondering if it's going to be retroactive, Sol Ring costing  Generic and producing <2> colourless?

[Varal]

If the symbol means that colorless mana needs to be used to cast it, it's probably still normal colorless mana but they used a special symbol instead of writing "At least X colorless mana needs to be spent to cast this spell." on every cards. There's probably some subtle differences with some cards like Omniscience. It could also be similar to the Snow supertype but the land has no supertype besides Basic.

[gkraigher]

What's the confusion?

This is a new mana type that can always be used as colorless mana but is required mana for spells/abilities with it in it's cost.  It's unique and is always colorless.

No, they will not be changing cards like sol ring retroactively.  The <> mana symbol is unique to cards with it on it.  Nothing will be done retroactivly with colorless mana producing cards.  Honestly, I don't know how you could logically derive that assumption because it would mean they are changing the game entirly and moving away from what was printed on previous cards.  Wizards has made it clear, by the reverse errata on Time Vault, that they want cards to do as close as possible to what is printed on the card.  (Although I am still upset that Zodiac Dragon doesn't do what it says it should, inspite of a Wizards update to other cards like Riding the Dilu Horse in this press release  http://www.wizards.com/magic/p3k/p3k_faq.asp && http://www.wizards.com/magic/generic/cardlists/p3k_en_spoiler.txt  but that is a discussion for another forum https://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=41582.0


It's very similar to putting restrictions on mana, such as "can only be used to cast artifact spells" or "can only be used to cast creatures."  Well this has the ability to be used as colorless mana to cast any spell, and those spells/abilities requiring the mana type must have it.  

[bactgudz]

If the symbol means that colorless mana needs to be used to cast it, it's probably still normal colorless mana but they used a special symbol instead of writing "At least X colorless mana needs to be spent to cast this spell." on every cards. There's probably some subtle differences with some cards like Omniscience. It could also be similar to the Snow supertype but the land has no supertype besides Basic.

I think this possibility is ruled out by the mana ability shown on the non-basic.  It would not say "add <>" if <> only referred to cost payment (like the phyrexian or snow mana symbols)

[vaughnbros]

If the symbol means that colorless mana needs to be used to cast it, it's probably still normal colorless mana but they used a special symbol instead of writing "At least X colorless mana needs to be spent to cast this spell." on every cards. There's probably some subtle differences with some cards like Omniscience. It could also be similar to the Snow supertype but the land has no supertype besides Basic.

I think this possibility is ruled out by the mana ability shown on the non-basic.  It would not say "add <>" if <> only referred to cost payment (like the phyrexian or snow mana symbols)

Not if they plan to make this change for all future cards.  The mana ability on both lands says add <>.  We don't have a spoiler of a card adding yet

[boggyb]

also because it's basic, you can have as many as you want in a deck, right? So in standard we'll see a green/wastes deck with 5-8 wastes, ramp, and a bunch of huge payoffs in them.

[bactgudz]

If the symbol means that colorless mana needs to be used to cast it, it's probably still normal colorless mana but they used a special symbol instead of writing "At least X colorless mana needs to be spent to cast this spell." on every cards. There's probably some subtle differences with some cards like Omniscience. It could also be similar to the Snow supertype but the land has no supertype besides Basic.

I think this possibility is ruled out by the mana ability shown on the non-basic.  It would not say "add <>" if <> only referred to cost payment (like the phyrexian or snow mana symbols)

Not if they plan to make this change for all future cards.  The mana ability on both lands says add <>.  We don't have a spoiler of a card adding yet

Seems like a lot of effort for little gain and either inconstancy or mass errata.  And they are going to have to put a heck of a lot of non-basic hate or basic love in standard for anyone to run Wastes if that is the case...otherwise it'll be pain lands all over the place?

[vaughnbros]

If the symbol means that colorless mana needs to be used to cast it, it's probably still normal colorless mana but they used a special symbol instead of writing "At least X colorless mana needs to be spent to cast this spell." on every cards. There's probably some subtle differences with some cards like Omniscience. It could also be similar to the Snow supertype but the land has no supertype besides Basic.

I think this possibility is ruled out by the mana ability shown on the non-basic.  It would not say "add <>" if <> only referred to cost payment (like the phyrexian or snow mana symbols)

Not if they plan to make this change for all future cards.  The mana ability on both lands says add <>.  We don't have a spoiler of a card adding yet

Seems like a lot of effort for little gain and either inconstancy or mass errata.  And they are going to have to put a heck of a lot of non-basic hate or basic love in standard for anyone to run Wastes if that is the case...otherwise it'll be pain lands all over the place?

I wouldn't say little gain, without this change every card they print with the <> symbol is effectively worthless outside of this standard format, and maybe a fringe deck in modern.  They can also continue to use it in the future.

[gkraigher]

also because it's basic, you can have as many as you want in a deck, right?

Yes, that is one advantage of being a basic land.  I don't really want to break out the rule book, but there is a rule that specifially says "you can have any number of basic lands" in your deck. 

[MaximumCDawg]

I'm also hoping they push it. I mean, would even an instant "<>, draw 3 cards" be playable?

This card would kill legacy, modern, and standard.  Not going to happen.  It would have to cost 5 mana like Jace's Ingenuity or be a 4 mana sorcery.  Neither of which is likely.  

I think this set will be completely useless to Vintage unless all previous colorless lands are pseudo errated to produce waste mana.  The former being much more likely.

this is most likely going to be the case.  At least they are returning to Innistrad next block.  Innistrad had a ton of playable eternal cards.  

What needs new Oracle text?  It seems like they would not go the "snow mana" route here, and require that you spend WASTE mana on <>.  Seems more likely that you are required to spend COLORLESS mana on <>, and forbidden from spending colored mana.  The Waste symbol could be a cost without being an actual mana symbol or property of mana.  The Wastes land could have the symbol to match the other colored basic lands because, hey, how else would you template "T: Add one colorless mana to your mana pool" on a full-art land?

If these cards are legit, that's my expectation.  And it really does make a lot of sense, since it makes cards that were previously worse than their allies (that one Llanowar elf that tapped for 1 colorless snow mana, fe) back into consideration with a new use.  I think this is awesome if real.

EDIT: Whoops, scooped above on page 2.  That said, if this is just Snow Mana 2.0, I'll be really dissapointed in WotC.

[Aaron Patten]

I'm also hoping they push it. I mean, would even an instant "<>, draw 3 cards" be playable?

This card would kill legacy, modern, and standard.  Not going to happen.  It would have to cost 5 mana like Jace's Ingenuity or be a 4 mana sorcery.  Neither of which is likely.  

I think this set will be completely useless to Vintage unless all previous colorless lands are pseudo errated to produce waste mana.  The former being much more likely.

this is most likely going to be the case.  At least they are returning to Innistrad next block.  Innistrad had a ton of playable eternal cards.  

What needs new Oracle text?  It seems like they would not go the "snow mana" route here, and require that you spend WASTE mana on <>.  Seems more likely that you are required to spend COLORLESS mana on <>, and forbidden from spending colored mana.  The Waste symbol could be a cost without being an actual mana symbol or property of mana.  The Wastes land could have the symbol to match the other colored basic lands because, hey, how else would you template "T: Add one colorless mana to your mana pool" on a full-art land?

If these cards are legit, that's my expectation.  And it really does make a lot of sense, since it makes cards that were previously worse than their allies (that one Llanowar elf that tapped for 1 colorless snow mana, fe) back into consideration with a new use.  I think this is awesome if real.

EDIT: Whoops, scooped above on page 2.  That said, if this is just Snow Mana 2.0, I'll be really dissapointed in WotC.

The <> symbol appears as a type of mana though.  It is on both lands and the second spoiled one shows it in a full sentence.  I think these are real and I don't think that <> means that colourless mana has to be spent for the cost.  If that's all it meant they would not be adding <> type of mana because it would not be necessary to.  There are already templates that require special types of mana to be spent in snow mana and in that same template a special type of mana can be produced which has the requisite properties to cast those spells/pay those costs.  This is basically the same thing all over again. 

[boggyb]

If they print a ridiculous artifact with a <> in its cost, could see play in shops for sure (with wastes slipping into alternate land slots #3-4). If they print a wastes fetch (a "get a wastes or an island/forest/plains/swamp/mountain" cycle) and/or wastes duals that don't come into play tapped, and also some powerful wastes cards, this could slip into vintage definitely. Just have to wait and see.

[Khahan]

I'm also hoping they push it. I mean, would even an instant "<>, draw 3 cards" be playable?

This card would kill legacy, modern, and standard.  Not going to happen.  It would have to cost 5 mana like Jace's Ingenuity or be a 4 mana sorcery.  Neither of which is likely.  

I think this set will be completely useless to Vintage unless all previous colorless lands are pseudo errated to produce waste mana.  The former being much more likely.

this is most likely going to be the case.  At least they are returning to Innistrad next block.  Innistrad had a ton of playable eternal cards.  

What needs new Oracle text?  It seems like they would not go the "snow mana" route here, and require that you spend WASTE mana on <>.  Seems more likely that you are required to spend COLORLESS mana on <>, and forbidden from spending colored mana.  The Waste symbol could be a cost without being an actual mana symbol or property of mana.  The Wastes land could have the symbol to match the other colored basic lands because, hey, how else would you template "T: Add one colorless mana to your mana pool" on a full-art land?

If these cards are legit, that's my expectation.  And it really does make a lot of sense, since it makes cards that were previously worse than their allies (that one Llanowar elf that tapped for 1 colorless snow mana, fe) back into consideration with a new use.  I think this is awesome if real.

EDIT: Whoops, scooped above on page 2.  That said, if this is just Snow Mana 2.0, I'll be really dissapointed in WotC.

The <> symbol appears as a type of mana though.  It is on both lands and the second spoiled one shows it in a full sentence.  I think these are real and I don't think that <> means that colourless mana has to be spent for the cost.  If that's all it meant they would not be adding <> type of mana because it would not be necessary to.  There are already templates that require special types of mana to be spent in snow mana and in that same template a special type of mana can be produced which has the requisite properties to cast those spells/pay those costs.  This is basically the same thing all over again. 

Its one of 2 things the <> could be a brand new mana symbol and require that mana. Or it could just indicate that colorless and only colorless mana can be spent for that cost as opposed to  being 3 of any mana whether colorless or not.  Sitting here debating which it actually is will be rather pointless since either is a valid option.

[gkraigher]

If they print a wastes fetch (a "get a wastes or an island/forest/plains/swamp/mountain" cycle)

they have them already:  terramorphic expanse and evolving wilds.  

Seems more likely that you are required to spend COLORLESS mana on <>, and forbidden from spending colored mana.  

then please explain to me how the wording on this card doesn't directly contradict this statement:



Also what you are suggesting is not only complicated, it's OVERLY complicated.  Wizards is fine making complicated cards, but when people pick up a card and cannot figure out what it means then they have lost enterprise value.  I don't understand how anyone can look at a <> symbol and be like, "oh clearly that means I cannot spend mana of any color to activate this, but then I have to use two mana in any other combination of colors as well, including colorless."  The simplest solution often is the actual solution.

PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE:  This is a new mana type that can always be used as colorless mana but is required mana for spells/abilities with it in it's cost.  It's unique and is always colorless.

Previously there were 6 different types of mana you could have in your mana pool.  Red, Green, Blue, White, Black, and Colorless.  With these new cards, there is now a 7th type of mana you can have in your mana pool.  I have no idea what Wizard's intends to call this "specific but colorless" mana type.  If I had to speculate, I think it'll be called "Void" mana.

[Chubby Rain]

Seems more likely that you are required to spend COLORLESS mana on <>, and forbidden from spending colored mana.  

then please explain to me how the wording on this card doesn't directly contradict this statement:



PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE:  This is a new mana type that can always be used as colorless mana but is required mana for spells/abilities with it in it's cost.  It's unique and is always colorless.

Previously there were 6 different types of mana you could have in your mana pool.  Red, Green, Blue, White, Black, and Colorless.  With these new cards, there is now a 7th type of mana you can have in your mana pool.  I have no idea what Wizard's intends to call this "specific but colorless" mana type.  If I had to speculate, I think it'll be called "Void" mana.

Pretty sure you are spot on here. It's colorless snow mana...

[boggyb]

If they print a wastes fetch (a "get a wastes or an island/forest/plains/swamp/mountain" cycle)

they have them already:  terramorphic expanse and evolving wilds.  

that's, ah, not the same, dawg. We have Flood Plain et al also but aren't referring to those when we say "fetch land". That phrase is reserved for CIP untapped fetches.

[gkraigher]

If they print a wastes fetch (a "get a wastes or an island/forest/plains/swamp/mountain" cycle)

they have them already:  terramorphic expanse and evolving wilds.  

that's, ah, not the same, dawg. We have Flood Plain et al also but aren't referring to those when we say "fetch land". That phrase is reserved for CIP untapped fetches.

A card that does:
Pay 1 life, sac:  find a basic land

Will never be printed.  It's overpowered on every level.  Think about it for modern.  All 2 color decks would run 4 along with 4 on color fetch lands.  All multicolor decks would run 4 in standard.  All of them.  

You're stuck with terramorphic expanse and evolving wilds.  Maybe they will print a few more with different names.  

[zimagic]

then please explain to me how the wording on this card doesn't directly contradict this statement:



Also what you are suggesting is not only complicated, it's OVERLY complicated.  Wizards is fine making complicated cards, but when people pick up a card and cannot figure out what it means then they have lost enterprise value.  I don't understand how anyone can look at a <> symbol and be like, "oh clearly that means I cannot spend mana of any color to activate this, but then I have to use two mana in any other combination of colors as well, including colorless."  The simplest solution often is the actual solution.

PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE:  This is a new mana type that can always be used as colorless mana but is required mana for spells/abilities with it in it's cost.  It's unique and is always colorless.

Previously there were 6 different types of mana you could have in your mana pool.  Red, Green, Blue, White, Black, and Colorless.  With these new cards, there is now a 7th type of mana you can have in your mana pool.  I have no idea what Wizard's intends to call this "specific but colorless" mana type.  If I had to speculate, I think it'll be called "Void" mana.

Forget Vintage for a moment and look at the current Standard decklists. The format is so colour friendly that people playing wedge decks are splashing a 4th colour! It's pratically Alara-era 5-color Cruel Control.

The majority of that comes from Khans (with some help from Battle duals) but now we're deep into the Zendikar storyline and the current block cards are a footnote in the huge carry-over from the powerful Khans cards we've been feasting on for the past year.

Zen block is all about Devoid & colourless but what does that matter if you don't have to make any significant effort to alter your manabase to include these cards? How do you encourage players used to fetching duals and playing tri-lands from the previous block to play cards that really care about colourless in this one?

You could do non-basic hate but everyone despises that and answering the strengths of your previous block with straight hate cards in the new one isn't going to be welcomed, especially as you're boosting said manabases with non-basics from BFZ, you'd also be hating inside the block.

What you could do is force people, who have no issue paying a turn 4 Rhino 1WBG, into paying another card <>WBG (presuming <> is colorless, not Void/Snow). In this instance, You can't just run out WBG sources and add 1 of whatever extra mana you have lying about as you do for your Rhino, you actually need that <> to be colourless. An Elf or Swamp wont do.

This means a few things: Your mana base must produce colorless in addition to WBG (plus the 4th color splash you're currently running because it's so darn simple in this format) and that colorless is currently only fetchable into play tapped (Evolving Wilds) or off a draw; or You have to run Origins Pain lands to ensure both colorless and 2 of your colors (and that comes with a ping and isn't serchable into play); or include cards that will search them into play of which there are 7 in the current standard, none of which see competitive play, and all of which put that <> basic into play tapped.

Now all you need is to provide cards that encourage players to drop 4-color manabases in favor of something that costs <><>U (or whatever), a cost that's almost unplayable in the decks at the top of the current standard pile.

From a Standard perspective, forcing players to pay colorless makes a huge amount of sense both in complexity (a small additional layer but one that changes everything) & storyline. This interpretation makes perfect flavor sense for the current storyline, it cleans up a hazy area of "Generic" and "colourless" mana for less experienced players and opens up colorless for exploitation as a 6th color with a built in restriction: the requirement to pay colourless to play spells and activate abilities.

The only other concern WotC have is balancing for Modern. They don't want to drop anything too abusable into the format, but again, they could print just about anything if they push the colorless "requirement" sufficiently. A Monster at <><><><><> could be sufficiently pushed knowing that in order to be able to play that card on turn 5 the current solutions are colorless basics & mana rocks, zero other spells. Deckbuilders would need to trade off the ability to consistantly play high "colorless-required" spells against including colors and all the play restrictions that trade-off implies.

Eternal? WotC don't test for eternal, it stabilises itself through extremely high power level entry requirement and the Restricted list.

They also just restricted an extremely powerful tool in the Workshop arsenal. [puts on tin-foil hat] Were they nixing an obstacle that would allow Workshop decks to exploit an influx of powerful <> cards?[/tin-foil hat]

[bactgudz]

Another point against <> simply being the colorless (to differentiate from generic) mana symbol:

Most of us are aware of how sh***y mtgo is with spending our colorless mana, not even allowing us to hold control or something to let us spend workshop mana preferentially.  So maybe they would fix that.
.
.
.
BUT, this mechanic would make colorless mana better than colored mana in many common instances in standard, and more prevalent than it usually is.  So what is mtgo just going to stop auto-spending colorless as generic for you? Are you going to have to hold down control when you cast everything in standard?  Is mtgo just going to be sh**tier to play until rotation?  I will grant that the last one is a distinct possibility; but I do think that in a sense it would represent the antithesis of what colorless \neq generic would be trying to accomplish.  Why should mtgo autospend my <> for (1) now that the distinction would have been made clear.

In other words, either the mechanic and "mana philosophy" don't functionally work on mtgo [your colorless will get autospent] or you have to change the way everyone casts every spell forever in an inconvenient manner [not autospent].

It would be an nice mechanic for us, certainly easy for them to make something Vintage playbale.  But mtgo, painlands in standard making Wastes irrelevant to most decks, changing the drawback of every colorless producing land ever printed or to be printed into a power swing, and mass errata just seem to be too many things against the possibility of simply <>=colorless (1)=generic.


I also do not think it is simply a "type" of colorless mana a la snow.  I do think there is something else up with this mana otherwise Barry's Land is just....marginal...super marginal.....super duper marginal.
And I have a hard time believing that is the case.  They learned that snow as it exists is marginal so they won't make the same mistake twice...er three times (I hope).  But what if snow mana had some existential use outside of being able to pay for [snow] or interact with a handful of cards?

I think this may be actually very cool what they have done here. I do think it may be spent as generic mana or to pay <> costs.  But I'm betting it does something else particularly useful to extend its reach beyond this block.  Power-level wise this could range from:  Maybe you can pay <> to essentially void a color requirement in a cost or something, ie (1)<> or (2)<> casts lightning bolt. To something small like allowing you to spend extra mana on spells (RGBW<> for painful truth for instance).

This makes Barry's Land (and what you can do with your <>) the real focus and something that can outlive the block.  We've only seen 2 cards that require <> to cast or activate, both mythics [it looks like, I can't really tell on the land] and I'm thinking that the set will be more about what <> does than cards that cost <>.

But I think focusing on just "colorless matters" is too low for Barry's Land.  The name is obviously Void mana as others have mentioned.

[zimagic]

 But mtgo, painlands in standard making Wastes irrelevant to most decks, changing the drawback of every colorless producing land ever printed or to be printed into a power swing, and mass errata just seem to be too many things against the possibility of simply <>=colorless (1)=generic.

Just a couple of counter points to this:
Painlands don't make "Waste" irrelevant in the same way that dual lands don't make WUBRG basics irrelevant. There's a place for all types.

As to the second point, as long as you don't require colorless in a cost, having a land produce  or <> is largely irrelevant. This won't change anything for cards printed in the last 22 years with generic mana costs. It will only be relevant if your cost must be paid from a colorless source, thus cards that don't exist yet.

I have no idea how MTGO will handle any of this.

[bactgudz]

 But mtgo, painlands in standard making Wastes irrelevant to most decks, changing the drawback of every colorless producing land ever printed or to be printed into a power swing, and mass errata just seem to be too many things against the possibility of simply <>=colorless (1)=generic.

Just a couple of counter points to this:
Painlands don't make "Waste" irrelevant in the same way that dual lands don't make WUBRG basics irrelevant. There's a place for all types.

As to the second point, as long as you don't require colorless in a cost, having a land produce   or <> is largely irrelevant. This won't change anything for cards printed in the last 22 years with generic mana costs. It will only be relevant if your cost must be paid from a colorless source, thus cards that don't exist yet.

I have no idea how MTGO will handle any of this.

1) If true dual lands were in standard, and there were about 10 different named dual lands in each color pair (equivalent to etb untapped tap for (1) non-basics)...WUBRG basics would be irrelevant in standard.  Likewise, Barry's Land would be marginalized to some basic land search applications in niche decks or they've got to bring the hate to standard; and I'm betting they make Barry's Land a centerpiece not an afterthought in standard.

2) The major argument I've been hearing to even justify <>=colorless (1)=generic is to solidify the terminology and make distinct the difference between colorless and generic, avoiding confusion from new players who ask "why can I pay G for (1)" but not "(1) for G"...that is what I was addressing by saying how it requires errata (which they always do for terminology changes), consistent application and is incompatible with any reasonable engineering of mtgo auto-spending.
3) We already know they require <> in some costs and my arguments against <>=colorless thus are in the context of costs requiring colorless.

[gkraigher]

You don't know how MODO will handle any of this?

Cmon guys, what is the simplest solution?

It would be adding a 7th type of mana graphic for Void mana to the screen and keeping colorless mana the exact same.  Problem solved.

[rikter]

I think Gkraigher has the gist of how this is going to work: a waste mana symbol in the casting cost means waste mana, period, not "colorless only". My question is whether or not the waste mana can double as colorless, making it a bit more versatile.