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

[serracollector]

If <> is just required colorless in standard there is not necessarily a need for pain lands. Hedron Archive the Blighted lands Rogues Passage the plethora of lands that make tokens and Sylvan Scrying all exist in the format. I personally have used these cards on purpose to already to lessen some of the cards like painful truth and woodland wanderer and radiant flames.

[vaughnbros]

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.

Umm Yeah I can't see them saying no you can't cast your Eldrazi with your Eldrazi mana.

[Aaron Patten]

It's just rehashed snow mana.  There would be no need to add <> as, the lands do, if a cost of <> simply required colourless mana.  It's not a new colour either as Maro has already publicly stated that will never happen.  This is the compromise they were talking about.  It is super marginal but no one should have expected anything else.  

Edit: I actually think this is an excellent choice from a design perspective.  It allows them to add new types of mana to restrict a highly effective mechanic to only be used as intended.  It's a fine way to keep things restricted to the block or set they were designed for and reduce the occurrence of unforeseen interactions in Vintage, Legacy, or Modern.  

[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.

Umm Yeah I can't see them saying no you can't cast your Eldrazi with your Eldrazi mana.

I know I know, it would seem silly to say that waste mana can't be used as generic colorless, but given that it's unconfirmed speculation at this point, I don't think you can say with certainty that that is how it will work. Even though it totally should.

[xouman]

Somebody told me that ALL colorless mana would be treated now as <> (errated). Sol ring would give <><> when activated, while costing 1 (meaning that 1 can be paid with <>,  or ). Workshop would give <><><>, but only for artifact spells.  On the other hand, lotus can never give <> mana.

Summarizing:

<> for colorless mana
1 for generic mana (color or colorless)

Well, that person could be wrong, but it sound reasonable.

[Protoaddict]

I think the prospects of getting cards that cannot be cast of lotus but could be good is super promising for opening a format up, i just don't know how they do that in a 140 card set. Trying to think of what cards could reasonably appear in this set that would potentially see play in vintage and not break other formats.

<> Mox - Only if legendary I imagine, and may still be too good next to Mox opal in Legacy and Modern affinity. That being said lets say they instead of a mox made a modified mana rock that just cost 1. So its basically an elf. That could be plausible.
<> Burn spell - only if efficient, but I think this is unlikely as we got a colorless burn spell in the last set
<> counter - The odds of this being playable are slim outside of it being <> mana, let alone in this new colorless subset
Lands - Always possible, but this set is already super crowded for lands since we know it will have the other 5 BS duals.
Creatures - Here is where my hopes lie. A cheap efficient beater or a game winning threat could be the place to go. Since something like Kozelik would be cheated in anyways the mana cost likely does not matter.

[boggyb]

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.  

I wasn't suggesting that -- was suggesting a cycle of five lands that can find either a Wastes or an Island/Forest/Swamp/Mountain/Plains, so you could get a dual, a single type of basic, or a wastes with them. There's a chance they make this. More likely is a cycle of CIPT lands that add a normal mana or a wastes mana. If those have a land subtype as well, there's a chance they see vintage play given a powerful payoff. Like, "[<>]: Sift" or something.

[xouman]

If any vintage deck gets some benefit from "waste" spells it should be MUD. No other deck packs similar amount of colorless manasources: tombs, factories, wastelands, strip mine, city of traitors... even other cards as cavern of souls, homeward path, riashidan port, ghost quarter. Plus sol ring, cript, vault.

I'm pretty sure that R&D have this in mind, so they are not likely creating devastating cards without color spells. I cannot imagine counterspells, tutors or bolts with a reasonable cost of colorless mana. If any, spells with mixed color and colorless mana. Something like

Wastestral recall        <><><>
instant
target player draws 3 cards


Would only be playable in mud, but it would be too good.

[vaughnbros]

Xouman how does MUD reliably cast that without moxen, lotus, or workshop? 

I also agree there is like a 99% chance this is just another snow mana.  So we technically have 8 types of mana now, but still 5 colors.

[jcb193]

I personally love the concept of this being a "sixth mana", but I feel like that might be a little too ambitious. But they could be paving the way for that and seeing how it works. I personally feel this might be them setting the framework for a dipping of their toes in the concept of new duals, but we shall see. Either way, could be exciting if it's colorless only and not snow mana!

That said, I feel like if this was truly "colorless mana" it would have a more iconic  mana symbol and also a more iconic land. But who knows.....

[xouman]

Xouman how does MUD reliably cast that without moxen, lotus, or workshop? 

Assuming <> = colorless mana, the only mana sources non-supporting waste spells would be 4 workshops, 5 moxen, 1 tolarian and 1 lotus. 11 cards from a total of about 25 mana sources. Not counting metalworkers. If there are spells playable with colorless mana, MUD is going to play them easily.

However I think we need some explanation from wizards. I honestly think this is not a snow lands situation, but let's get sure.

[gkraigher]

maybe <> isn't colorless, maybe <> is just <> and you can use it, like you can all other colors of mana, to pay for colorless mana costs.  While also not being able to be produced my cards that produce colored mana. 

As for flavor, I think it's perfect storytelling.  The Eldrazi are destroyers of land, but they are also mana hungry.  Laying "waste" to lands but still drawing strength from them.  Distorting their nature but keeping what they need.

I think Wizards has done an exception job of marketing here as well.  They released clues on 3 separate cards.  Seemingly giving us enough pieces of the puzzle to figure out what they are up to. 

[xouman]

Paying <> just with <> mana and no colorless makes little sense. Those cards would be unplayable in anything outside standard, unless they print a full set of lands. But well, snow mana worked that way so it's possible, althought it would be a pity,

[MaximumCDawg]

I agree with you, Xouman.  It makes a lot of sense to differentiate 1 mana *of any type and color* from 1 mana *that must not have any color* as mana costs.

But, the others have a fair point, too: they did print Snow mana, and that's exactly as crappy as you're talking about here.  I guess let's keep our finger crossed and see what WotC is actually doing.

[Protoaddict]

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.  

I wasn't suggesting that -- was suggesting a cycle of five lands that can find either a Wastes or an Island/Forest/Swamp/Mountain/Plains, so you could get a dual, a single type of basic, or a wastes with them. There's a chance they make this. More likely is a cycle of CIPT lands that add a normal mana or a wastes mana. If those have a land subtype as well, there's a chance they see vintage play given a powerful payoff. Like, "[<>]: Sift" or something.

I do not think it is impossible to get a fetch-like card to get wastes. It would perhaps be limited to basics and have a higher life costs to bring them in untapped.

Waste-fetch
T, Pay 3 life: Search your deck for a basic land and put it into play.

Seems reasonable but then it also is a 5 color fetch for basics which has a lot of rammifications outside of just colorless sources? Maybe it would be limited to a wastes or a single type of basic? It could also be something well different than a fetch like:

Waste-maker
When wastemaker comes into play, sacrifice it and another land you control. Search your deck for 2 wastes and put them into play.

Some sort of mana fixing is plausible at least because the "color" would need to be supported somehow to make the cards viable, especially in standard where there is very little incentive to do anything less than 3 colors right now.

[gkraigher]

Paying <> just with <> mana and no colorless makes little sense.

What makes no sense to me is how half of this forum is in the camp that Wizards is going to obfuscate the game, changing one of its most iconic mana symbols--the most prevelent in the game--to mean something completely different than its meant for 21 years.

And in the same breathe rewrite thousands of lines of code in an already shitty online program. 

[gkraigher]

Summarizing:

<> for colorless mana
1 for generic mana (color or colorless)

Well, that person could be wrong, but it sound reasonable.

They aren't going to bifurcate the meaning of 1 (colorless) in the rules text of 1000s of Magic cards.  Where it means one thing on the left of a : and another on the right side of it. 

[TVand]

Summarizing:

<> for colorless mana
1 for generic mana (color or colorless)

Well, that person could be wrong, but it sound reasonable.

They aren't going to bifurcate the meaning of 1 (colorless) in the rules text of 1000s of Magic cards.  Where it means one thing on the left of a : and another on the right side of it. 

What's wrong with clarification?  The symbol 1 has different meanings in different contexts as things stand now.  Why would changing that be a bad thing?

[gkraigher]

Because it's written on thousands of cards, changing it would confuse new and current players in mass.  When people feel disenfranchised they quit, and when people quit it hurts Wizards enterprise value.  So wizards has an incentive to not do anything drastic to the game like that.

[fsecco]

I really can't understand why all the discussion on what seems obvious. No, you can't pay <> with colorless mana, that's the whole point. Why would they even make a Kozilek cost 8<><> if, actually, you know, it really costed 10? Like it or not, this is colorless snow mana, and just that.

It is also obvious that you can pay the 1 in Dissolve (1UU) with a land that produces <>, since 1 requires ANY MANA.

[TVand]

Because it's written on thousands of cards, changing it would confuse new and current players in mass.  When people feel disenfranchised they quit, and when people quit it hurts Wizards enterprise value.  So wizards has an incentive to not do anything drastic to the game like that.

This would hardly be the first time they've done mass errata, though.  And changing the colorless mana symbol wouldn't even be functional errata -- all it would do is serve to clarify that colorless and generic mana are different.  Compare this to The Grand Creature Type Update, which actually functionally changed nearly 1200 cards.  Also, while current new players may be confused by the changeover, going forward it would make the concept of colorless vs. generic mana easier to explain to a beginner.

[Dice_Box]

I think it's mostly made for EDH. Right now if you play a deck with say, Karn, Silver Golem as your commander you can't run basics. This solves that's.

Also the simplest way I think to make this work is to make it read:"Spend only colourless on this symbol".

So that new big guy costs 10 colourless, but 2 of its mana must come from actual colourless sources. That's my guess.

[gkraigher]

Because it's written on thousands of cards, changing it would confuse new and current players in mass.  When people feel disenfranchised they quit, and when people quit it hurts Wizards enterprise value.  So wizards has an incentive to not do anything drastic to the game like that.

This would hardly be the first time they've done mass errata, though.  And changing the colorless mana symbol wouldn't even be functional errata -- all it would do is serve to clarify that colorless and generic mana are different.  Compare this to The Grand Creature Type Update, which actually functionally changed nearly 1200 cards.  Also, while current new players may be confused by the changeover, going forward it would make the concept of colorless vs. generic mana easier to explain to a beginner.

This is a well constructed argument, with a very good point.  My only retort is that this move was done when the game didn't have as much continuity as it does today.  It's possible, but I find it unlikely, that Wizards will ever do anything like that again. 

[MaximumCDawg]

I really can't understand why all the discussion on what seems obvious. No, you can't pay <> with colorless mana, that's the whole point. Why would they even make a Kozilek cost 8<><> if, actually, you know, it really costed 10? Like it or not, this is colorless snow mana, and just that.

It is also obvious that you can pay the 1 in Dissolve (1UU) with a land that produces <>, since 1 requires ANY MANA.

It's not obvious.  <> is not yet defined.   Could you have predicted what the phyrexian mana symbol did before they defined it?

Let's just hold our breath until we learn whether this is Snow mana or a way to require colorless mana specifically.

[rpf5029]

Just so we're on the same page, the current "types" of mana are

  {Snow}, and -- theoretically -- <>, right?  Since Phyrexian mana isn't technically mana. 


I still think it will end up being
  {Snow}, and <> renaming colorless, as xouman described.  Otherwise, since Commander's color identity refers to the mana symbols themselves, Wastes would not fulfill the need in that format for Barry's land.

[TVand]

Snow is not a type of mana.  There are only 6 types -- the 5 colors and colorless.  Snow costs specify that the mana you use to pay them must come from a certain source.  This is a property of the cost, not the mana itself.

This is a well constructed argument, with a very good point.  My only retort is that this move was done when the game didn't have as much continuity as it does today.  It's possible, but I find it unlikely, that Wizards will ever do anything like that again.

Thank you.  I agree that there would be detriment in the short term to making this change, but personally I believe that the long-term benefits of clearing up confusion re. colorless vs. generic mana and the added design space of being able to require colorless in costs would outweigh the negatives.  Also, I had hoped that Wizards learned their lesson about snow mana given that it has been publicly acknowledged as a failure.  However, only time will tell which way they've actually gone.

[bactgudz]

Just so we're on the same page, the current "types" of mana are

  {Snow}, and -- theoretically -- <>, right?  Since Phyrexian mana isn't technically mana. 


I still think it will end up being
  {Snow}, and <> renaming colorless, as xouman described.  Otherwise, since Commander's color identity refers to the mana symbols themselves, Wastes would not fulfill the need in that format for Barry's land.

As long as <> is not a color (I don't think anyone is speculating otherwise), regardless of the definitions discussed Wastes fulfills the "need" for a basic with no color identity in commander.

[bactgudz]

So I noticed a templating change in BFZ which is going to lead me to throw another possibility out there.
Notice that the reminder and rules text for Devoid is "this card has no color"  not "this card is colorless".  This is a reversal from previous sets (see Ghostflame).

So we could have:

<> is a new type of mana, Devoid mana.  Devoid mana has no color.  Change to comp rule 202: Devoid mana may be used to pay for any mana symbol in the cost of an object with no color.

[psly4mne]

So I noticed a templating change in BFZ which is going to lead me to throw another possibility out there.
Notice that the reminder and rules text for Devoid is "this card has no color"  not "this card is colorless".  This is a reversal from previous sets (see Ghostflame).

So we could have:

<> is a new type of mana, Devoid mana.  Devoid mana has no color.  Change to comp rule 202: Devoid mana may be used to pay for any mana symbol in the cost of an object with no color.

"Has no color" and "colorless" are synonymous, just like "can't be blocked" and "unblockable" (and "can't be destroyed" and "indestructible" before the latter became a keyword). Presumably Wizards changed the wording of the reminder text because of stupid people thinking that Ghostfire was red and colorless.

[bactgudz]

So I noticed a templating change in BFZ which is going to lead me to throw another possibility out there.
Notice that the reminder and rules text for Devoid is "this card has no color"  not "this card is colorless".  This is a reversal from previous sets (see Ghostflame).

So we could have:

<> is a new type of mana, Devoid mana.  Devoid mana has no color.  Change to comp rule 202: Devoid mana may be used to pay for any mana symbol in the cost of an object with no color.

"Has no color" and "colorless" are synonymous, just like "can't be blocked" and "unblockable" (and "can't be destroyed" and "indestructible" before the latter became a keyword). Presumably Wizards changed the wording of the reminder text because of stupid people thinking that Ghostfire was red and colorless.

That's why I said it was a templating change, nothing more.  The point is something motivated them to change their templating, maybe it is as you suggest (though I've never heard that confusion).  It could also be to highlight a mechanical link between sets.