TheManaDrain.com
December 04, 2021, 06:40:20 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
  Print  
Author Topic: [OGW] Wastes: Barry's Land is REAL?  (Read 30211 times)
psly4mne
Basic User
**
Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2015, 03:30:37 pm »

I see, I misunderstood your post. So are you suggesting that Devoid mana could be used to pay for the {R} in Ghostfire? That sounds unlikely to me.

I have seen people confused about Ghostfire a few times, which is why I think that templating change was solely for clarity, similar to the recent change from "unblockable" to "can't be blocked".
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 03:34:11 pm by psly4mne » Logged
bactgudz
Basic User
**
Posts: 355



View Profile
« Reply #91 on: November 20, 2015, 04:52:14 pm »

I see, I misunderstood your post. So are you suggesting that Devoid mana could be used to pay for the {R} in Ghostfire? That sounds unlikely to me.

I have seen people confused about Ghostfire a few times, which is why I think that templating change was solely for clarity, similar to the recent change from "unblockable" to "can't be blocked".

Yeah, exactly that.  So you could build a deck of devoid cards and Wastes in the current block and Wastes has some subtle but far reaching applicability beyond the block.  You could pay for the abilities on Memnarch with it, cast Ghostfire, crack any spellbomb, activate a filter land with it, etc.


This explains a couple other things in my mind:
a) Why such a sh**ty mechanic like devoid was a major set mechanic
b) Reconciling why the eldrazi like colors so much this time around and are not tied to the one color for their brood like last time
c) Why Wastes is being released in the second set of the block, they wanted enough of an environment to support building devoid decks and needed BFZ there first
d) Why one would care about Wastes in standard when there are about 10 non-basics that tap for (1) and etb untapped and we have one small set for <> to be the focus of.
e) How there can be enough support in the standard format to justify a <> basic land whatever <> means
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 05:20:39 pm by bactgudz » Logged
evouga
Basic User
**
Posts: 537


View Profile Email
« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2015, 08:22:50 pm »

There's a lot of wishful thinking in this thread. The simplest and most likely explanation is that <> is simply colorless snow mana and vintage-irrelevant. This allows WotC to require a new type of land to be used to pay for eldrazi spells without affecting any other block or format.

Also Waste is *not* Barry's Land as the whole point of Barry's Land was to enhance domain, which Waste does not do.
Logged
Dice_Box
Basic User
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2015, 10:11:02 pm »

No, but it does give a colourless land for EDH to use. I also feel that the simplest way to use it would be to make it a "Colour" going forward and that symbol means: 'Use non coloured mana to pay this cost.'

The support for this card will be Colourless EDH decks which until this point, could not play basic lands.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 10:24:11 pm by Dice_Box » Logged
Chubby Rain
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 742



View Profile Email
« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2015, 01:28:38 am »

No, but it does give a colourless land for EDH to use. I also feel that the simplest way to use it would be to make it a "Colour" going forward and that symbol means: 'Use non coloured mana to pay this cost.'

The support for this card will be Colourless EDH decks which until this point, could not play basic lands.

I don't feel this is the "simplest" implementation...Rather, how is a land producing colorless "Eldrazi" mana (which is analogous to Snow-covered Island tapping for blue Snow mana) any more complex? "It's colorless mana that you can use to cast certain Eldrazi spells" seems very intuitive to me.

Also, why have the lands tap for (<>) rather than {1}? If all (<>) means is you have to use colorless mana to satisfy the cost, why add this to mana-producing abilities? Doesn't reminder text that saying (<>) can only be paid with colorless mana suffice? Errata affecting all colorless sources seems completely unnecessary. Why change the hundreds of cards that produce colorless mana when you can just add reminder text to the handful of cards in which the (<>) symbol is relevant?
Logged

"Why are we making bad decks? I mean, honestly, what is our reason for doing this?"

"Is this a Vintage deck or a Cube deck?" "Is it sad that you have to ask?"

"Is that a draft deck?" "Why do people keep asking that?"

Random conversations...
psly4mne
Basic User
**
Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2015, 02:12:09 am »

I see, I misunderstood your post. So are you suggesting that Devoid mana could be used to pay for the {R} in Ghostfire? That sounds unlikely to me.

I have seen people confused about Ghostfire a few times, which is why I think that templating change was solely for clarity, similar to the recent change from "unblockable" to "can't be blocked".

Yeah, exactly that.  So you could build a deck of devoid cards and Wastes in the current block and Wastes has some subtle but far reaching applicability beyond the block.  You could pay for the abilities on Memnarch with it, cast Ghostfire, crack any spellbomb, activate a filter land with it, etc.


This explains a couple other things in my mind:
a) Why such a sh**ty mechanic like devoid was a major set mechanic
b) Reconciling why the eldrazi like colors so much this time around and are not tied to the one color for their brood like last time
c) Why Wastes is being released in the second set of the block, they wanted enough of an environment to support building devoid decks and needed BFZ there first
d) Why one would care about Wastes in standard when there are about 10 non-basics that tap for (1) and etb untapped and we have one small set for <> to be the focus of.
e) How there can be enough support in the standard format to justify a <> basic land whatever <> means
That actually makes a lot of sense and those are good points.
Logged
Dice_Box
Basic User
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2015, 02:35:15 am »

I don't feel this is the "simplest" implementation...Rather, how is a land producing colorless "Eldrazi" mana (which is analogous to Snow-covered Island tapping for blue Snow mana) any more complex? "It's colorless mana that you can use to cast certain Eldrazi spells" seems very intuitive to me.

Also, why have the lands tap for (<>) rather than {1}? If all (<>) means is you have to use colorless mana to satisfy the cost, why add this to mana-producing abilities? Doesn't reminder text that saying (<>) can only be paid with colorless mana suffice? Errata affecting all colorless sources seems completely unnecessary. Why change the hundreds of cards that produce colorless mana when you can just add reminder text to the handful of cards in which the (<>) symbol is relevant?
Because this is ugly:


Also because the symbol can mean "Use only colourless to pay this cost". So Islands, Mountains, Forests, Plains,  Swamps, Mox, Academy, Lotus, Cradle and so on can not be used to pay the mana costs of cards with that symbol. I feel if this new land is to have any longevity, that's the path to take. To stop it being Snow lands and give it a real use, that's what you do.
Logged
bactgudz
Basic User
**
Posts: 355



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2015, 05:56:10 am »

I see, I misunderstood your post. So are you suggesting that Devoid mana could be used to pay for the {R} in Ghostfire? That sounds unlikely to me.

I have seen people confused about Ghostfire a few times, which is why I think that templating change was solely for clarity, similar to the recent change from "unblockable" to "can't be blocked".

Yeah, exactly that.  So you could build a deck of devoid cards and Wastes in the current block and Wastes has some subtle but far reaching applicability beyond the block.  You could pay for the abilities on Memnarch with it, cast Ghostfire, crack any spellbomb, activate a filter land with it, etc.


This explains a couple other things in my mind:
a) Why such a sh**ty mechanic like devoid was a major set mechanic
b) Reconciling why the eldrazi like colors so much this time around and are not tied to the one color for their brood like last time
c) Why Wastes is being released in the second set of the block, they wanted enough of an environment to support building devoid decks and needed BFZ there first
d) Why one would care about Wastes in standard when there are about 10 non-basics that tap for (1) and etb untapped and we have one small set for <> to be the focus of.
e) How there can be enough support in the standard format to justify a <> basic land whatever <> means
That actually makes a lot of sense and those are good points.

Two more points:
f) Wotc marketing material for the prerelease says that Oath is the set that best ever supports two headed giant limited.  How can this be when over half the cards you get in a draft and half in sealed are from BFZ?  Because it is easy to split into two decks, one player can take all the devoid cards and play Wastes.
g) We now have motivation for the last 10 expeditions.  Expeditions are numbered out of 45, so there are 20 in Oath.  10 enemy manlands and 10 filterlands, previewing their return to standard since they work so well with <>.  There will not be enemy battle lands as 8 duals (with the 3 manlands) is too much for a small set.
Logged
fsecco
Basic User
**
Posts: 560



View Profile Email
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2015, 06:53:57 am »

I really can't understand the logic behind <> meaning "this can be paid only by colorless sources".

Since everyone is saying this is meant to help colorless commander, I'll give you a commander scenario. Imagine you're playing Commander with a MonoU deck. You put this new Kozilek in the deck. You have in play 8 islands, a City of Brass and a Gemstone Mine. Then you tap the islands for blue and City and Mine for white, actually generating colorless (because that's the Commander rules) and pay for Kozilek?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong, we're really only speculating, and I'll be glad to add that Kozilek to my Animar and pay for him with rainbow lands and dorks. But that doesn't seem likely to me.
Logged
Dice_Box
Basic User
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2015, 07:20:50 am »

No what I mean by Commander is that currently, should you be running a colourless General (Karn for example) you can not run any basics. This card being a colourless land would make sense as it fills that role. It is just says 't: add (1) to your mana pool' then you have that basic you need for these decks.

Also a while back there was a thing on the Mothership saying they had worked out a way to make colourless Basics talking directly to the EDH crowd. Later at Pax Aus there was something from Aaron saying they had been working on a fix. Seriously, with everything I have seen I am willing to bet good money this card will simply tap for a colourless mana and that symbol means "Use Colourless to pay this mana cost".

I am willing to be proven wrong, but right now I don't feel I am.
Logged
bactgudz
Basic User
**
Posts: 355



View Profile
« Reply #100 on: November 21, 2015, 09:14:31 pm »

No what I mean by Commander is that currently, should you be running a colourless General (Karn for example) you can not run any basics. This card being a colourless land would make sense as it fills that role. It is just says 't: add (1) to your mana pool' then you have that basic you need for these decks.

Again, this already fills that role regardless of the definition of <>.  We have seen Wastes.  It does not have W U R G or B in its text box nor does it have the subtype Plains Island Mountain Forest or Swamp.  So its color identity IS colorless.  <> could even mean one mana of any color and this would be the case under the current rules.
Logged
fsecco
Basic User
**
Posts: 560



View Profile Email
« Reply #101 on: November 22, 2015, 07:38:07 am »

That Wastes is the basic land colorless commanders want I understand, that's a given since the color identity seems obviously colorless and if you add <> to your mana pool you can use it to pay for artifacts, etc. What I meant is that using City of Brass to add colorless mana to pay for <> seems so out of flavor to me that <> meaning "you have to pay colorless" seems way off what <> will mean.
Logged
Dice_Box
Basic User
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: November 22, 2015, 08:22:13 am »

That Wastes is the basic land colorless commanders want I understand, that's a given since the color identity seems obviously colorless and if you add <> to your mana pool you can use it to pay for artifacts, etc. What I meant is that using City of Brass to add colorless mana to pay for <> seems so out of flavor to me that <> meaning "you have to pay colorless" seems way off what <> will mean.
I am confident enough in the other direction I would be willing to place a bet.
Logged
evouga
Basic User
**
Posts: 537


View Profile Email
« Reply #103 on: November 22, 2015, 08:45:01 am »

You think that <> will mean "you must spend colorless mana to pay <>", rather than <> being a colorless rehash of Snow?

I'm willing to take that bet and place a small wager (up to $100). PM me to hash out the details.
Logged
Protoaddict
Basic User
**
Posts: 664



View Profile WWW
« Reply #104 on: November 22, 2015, 08:06:17 pm »

Either way I have to believe that they are going to have to issue some amendments to the rules as we know them to accommodate these, if only because of EDH. It obviously cannot be a new color itself because then none of these cards would be viable in EDH, they would not fit the color identity rules. I'm very much leaning towards the symbol being colorless which is already a defined color of mana and it literally meaning only colorless can be spent as many have already pointed out.

Edh is a cash cow for WOTC, I cannot believe that they would implement something in a regular set that would not play in that format, therefor I have to believe that this is just a symbol for colorless as opposed to generic. It is the only explanation that works. Only hope is that they play with it a bit and hopefully we get something that the format cares about.
Logged

This is my podcast:

Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
jcb193
Basic User
**
Posts: 410


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: November 22, 2015, 08:23:52 pm »

That Wastes is the basic land colorless commanders want I understand, that's a given since the color identity seems obviously colorless and if you add <> to your mana pool you can use it to pay for artifacts, etc. What I meant is that using City of Brass to add colorless mana to pay for <> seems so out of flavor to me that <> meaning "you have to pay colorless" seems way off what <> will mean.
I am confident enough in the other direction I would be willing to place a bet.

Make it interesting, public and relevant.

For instance a bunch of sealed ice age packs (Snowland side) versus Ugin and Karn liberated (<>=colorless side).
« Last Edit: November 22, 2015, 09:36:42 pm by jcb193 » Logged
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #106 on: November 22, 2015, 08:56:56 pm »

How about $1000 cash vs eating a black lotus on live stream?  I'd like to see that.
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
vaughnbros
Basic User
**
Posts: 1574


View Profile Email
« Reply #107 on: November 22, 2015, 11:53:03 pm »

How about $1000 cash vs eating a black lotus on live stream?  I'd like to see that.

Please no eating black loti.
Logged
Dice_Box
Basic User
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: November 23, 2015, 12:09:03 am »

Make it interesting, public and relevant.

For instance a bunch of sealed ice age packs (Snowland side) versus Ugin and Karn liberated (<>=colorless side).
It is on. Terms agreed, 50 dollars. If it's a hoax, nothing. If Sol Ring can pay that cost I win. If not I lose.

Packs would be cool, but I live in ass end of the world, so posting things here never tends to be cheep. PayPal is so much simpler.

On the flip side. If I do lose, Cube Draft is about to become a lot more interesting.

How about $1000 cash vs eating a black lotus on live stream?  I'd like to see that.
You monster. (And my wife would never let me take that. 50 I don't need to tell her about...)
Logged
fsecco
Basic User
**
Posts: 560



View Profile Email
« Reply #109 on: November 23, 2015, 07:31:44 am »

Either way I have to believe that they are going to have to issue some amendments to the rules as we know them to accommodate these, if only because of EDH. It obviously cannot be a new color itself because then none of these cards would be viable in EDH, they would not fit the color identity rules. I'm very much leaning towards the symbol being colorless which is already a defined color of mana and it literally meaning only colorless can be spent as many have already pointed out.

Edh is a cash cow for WOTC, I cannot believe that they would implement something in a regular set that would not play in that format, therefor I have to believe that this is just a symbol for colorless as opposed to generic. It is the only explanation that works. Only hope is that they play with it a bit and hopefully we get something that the format cares about.
Why wouldn't a <> "snow" mana work on Commander? Color identity is still colorless, but the mana is a specific type. In any commander deck it will still add 1 instead of <>, because that's how commander works, but you still have to pay <><> to play that Kozilek.
Logged
psly4mne
Basic User
**
Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: November 23, 2015, 12:10:59 pm »

The relevant rule for commander mana production is:
Quote
903.9. If mana would be added to a playerís mana pool of a color that isnít in the color identity of that playerís commander, that amount of colorless mana is added to that playerís mana pool instead.

If <> is another type of mana, but not another color of mana, it can be produced in any commander deck.
Logged
Protoaddict
Basic User
**
Posts: 664



View Profile WWW
« Reply #111 on: November 23, 2015, 12:43:36 pm »

Wouldn't that necessitate then that it is in-fact colorless, and therefore since we have a strict definition of what colorless is the symbol would have to represent specifically colorless as opposed to generic?
Logged

This is my podcast:

Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: November 23, 2015, 01:12:18 pm »

Make it interesting, public and relevant.

For instance a bunch of sealed ice age packs (Snowland side) versus Ugin and Karn liberated (<>=colorless side).
It is on. Terms agreed, 50 dollars. If it's a hoax, nothing. If Sol Ring can pay that cost I win. If not I lose.

Packs would be cool, but I live in ass end of the world, so posting things here never tends to be cheep. PayPal is so much simpler.

On the flip side. If I do lose, Cube Draft is about to become a lot more interesting.

How about $1000 cash vs eating a black lotus on live stream?  I'd like to see that.
You monster. (And my wife would never let me take that. 50 I don't need to tell her about...)

Oh, the roffles. 

In this corner, we have evogua, representing cynicism and hostility towards WoTC and the belief that they'll used a failed design a second time because REASONS.

And, in this corner, we have Dice_Box, representing optimism and faith in WoTC's ability to make a logical and useful new mechanic.
Logged
Dice_Box
Basic User
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: November 23, 2015, 02:32:53 pm »

You know, if it is colourless pays, that will make going back to Mirrodin interesting. I mean imagin if Lodestone was (1)DDD (D being what we are calling it on the source to interesting effect). Suddenly you can not cast it off Lotus or a pair of Moxen and a City. While that effect is not so much of a bother with a Shop in play, the effect when your trying to cast off Coloured mana (About 27% of a Shops base) would mean you could push powers while still holding back colourless cards from just slotting into Vintage Shops.
Logged
evouga
Basic User
**
Posts: 537


View Profile Email
« Reply #114 on: November 23, 2015, 03:30:37 pm »

My REASONS are that it makes no sense to have lands tap for <> instead of  {1}, unless there is something special about <> beyond it needing to paid with colorless mana.
Logged
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 2172


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: November 23, 2015, 03:41:57 pm »

I mean, we're kinda beating a dead horse here, but how does it make sense for  {1} to mean "any color or none" or "no color at all" depending on context?  Using different symbols for "any color or none" and "no color" makes more sense to me...
Logged
evouga
Basic User
**
Posts: 537


View Profile Email
« Reply #116 on: November 23, 2015, 07:17:14 pm »

Yes, this is a fair point, but I don't buy that they're willing to change all past and future cards to use such an Eldrazi-like symbol.

But as you say, there's no point arguing back and forth all day; we'll find out soon enough.
Logged
fsecco
Basic User
**
Posts: 560



View Profile Email
« Reply #117 on: November 23, 2015, 09:11:06 pm »

I'll laugh hard if this is all just a hoax Razz
Logged
gkraigher
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 705


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: November 24, 2015, 09:02:33 am »

Why do you people think they are going to change the game and make it terrible over a handful of new cards?

I really don't think you are realizing the implications of what you are saying. 
Logged
Dice_Box
Basic User
**
Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: November 24, 2015, 10:17:32 am »

From my point of view, if they are going to make a new Basic they will have to support it long term. So I don't think it will be a handful of new cards.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.073 seconds with 21 queries.