Which leaves it to luck. In a sealed pool, how many blighted lands do you have? 1-2 most probably, maybe less since we will have only two BFZ packs. Enough to play your 4-5 <> spells?
There are always virtual unplayables in your sealed pool. Whether it's due to high cost, poor synergy, low number of cards in the same color, or just weak cards, there are always going to be cards you just can't play in your pool.
Plus, I don't think <> costing cards will be literally unplayable in any pool. If Wastes is in the land slot, then you will at least have 4 sources in every pool. That's minimum, and more than enough for a splash.
Which leaves it to luck. In a sealed pool, how many blighted lands do you have? 1-2 most probably, maybe less since we will have only two BFZ packs. Enough to play your 4-5 <> spells?
There are always virtual unplayables in your sealed pool. Whether it's due to high cost, poor synergy, low number of cards in the same color, or just weak cards, there are always going to be cards you just can't play in your pool.
Plus, I don't think <> costing cards will be literally unplayable in any pool. If Wastes is in the land slot, then you will at least have 4 sources in every pool. That's minimum, and more than enough for a splash.
But there has never been cards that are unplayable because you can't have the lands. They already said that BFZ full-art lands are in the land slot of the OGW boosters, with the BFZ symbol. Yes, that could be to mislead, but Wastes is identified as a Common, not a Land.
But there has never been cards that are unplayable because you can't have the lands. They already said that BFZ full-art lands are in the land slot of the OGW boosters, with the BFZ symbol. Yes, that could be to mislead, but Wastes is identified as a Common, not a Land.
Ahh, I missed that. I had heard that there are full art lands (of which Wastes is one) but not the specifics. They've had common rarity cards in the land slot before (FRF again), but since MaRo has made a direct statement that the same BFZ lands will be in OGW, then I'm inclined to believe it. He's usually cagier about it when trying to cover something up.
I don't think it's a problem for New Symbol Theory though, since there are already so many scion producers and other colorless sources in BFZ as hucka said, to go with whatever they have OGW. Under New Mana Theory though, they'll either have to a lot more support than one common slot for Wastes, or yes they'll have to arrange to supply them for Limited somehow.
I didn't read the thread fully so I don't know if this had been considered, but here's another thought I had that could make this work in this draft format without having to change lots of other stuff:
(♦ can be paid with either ♦ or one mana from an Eldrazi permanent.)
...Yeah, it's self-referential, but you get the idea. Alternatively:
(Mana from an Eldrazi permanent can be spent on ♦.)
(But then we're getting back into the parasitic zone... hmm.)
But there has never been cards that are unplayable because you can't have the lands. They already said that BFZ full-art lands are in the land slot of the OGW boosters, with the BFZ symbol. Yes, that could be to mislead, but Wastes is identified as a Common, not a Land.
Ahh, I missed that. I had heard that there are full art lands (of which Wastes is one) but not the specifics. They've had common rarity cards in the land slot before (FRF again), but since MaRo has made a direct statement that the same BFZ lands will be in OGW, then I'm inclined to believe it. He's usually cagier about it when trying to cover something up.
I don't think it's a problem for New Symbol Theory though, since there are already so many scion producers and other colorless sources in BFZ as hucka said, to go with whatever they have OGW. Under New Mana Theory though, they'll either have to a lot more support than one common slot for Wastes, or yes they'll have to arrange to supply them for Limited somehow.
Which is another reason I think the theory that the waste symbol is colorless only. That said, it isn't too hard for them to reserve a slot in each pack for a wastes if they wanted to. They could easily replace one common slot of each pack for a wastes slot to keep the supply of them up. Plus, as others said, there are plenty of ways to make it work, logistically. Putting them in precons and/or fatpacks, giving a small pack of them out at prerelease/release events, etc. They also don't necessarily have to supply these at limited events. If they are printed as a common the set's limited environment could very well be balanced around them being a common rather than assuming you'll just have as many as you want.
I didn't read the thread fully so I don't know if this had been considered, but here's another thought I had that could make this work in this draft format without having to change lots of other stuff:
(<> can be paid with either <> or one mana from an Eldrazi permanent.)
...Yeah, it's self-referential, but you get the idea. Alternatively:
(Mana from an Eldrazi permanent can be spent on <>.)
(But then we're getting back into the parasitic zone... hmm.)
That's Snow mana 2.0, which is one of the most parasitic mechanics that's been made in the game, also, there's no criteria to determine if a permanent is an "Eldrazi Permanent" (For example, Shrine of the Forsaken Gods, a land made specifically for Eldrazi decks in the same vein of Eldrazi Temple, doesn't have the word Eldrazi anywhere on its text), because that would have required the rules baggage of Tribal type being added to even the lands, as the Wastes is just a basic land, which for now, we know for sure that you can have more than 4 in your deck, as that amount limitation is overriden by the basic supertype.
Now, I see that the greatest confusion here is about how in the first set the colorless mana is represented by the encircled number and now they introduce the new colorless mana symbol in the middle of the block, and that confusion is greater because the card that might have a reminder text on it is a full-art variant, due to mythics lacking any reminder text on them, one logical option would be that the non-full-art version of Wastes could have this text:
Wastes
Basic Land (C) T: Add <> to your mana pool. (<> is one colorless mana)
It would need the actual rules text because so far, a basic land with no type has no rules text whatsoever, the (T: Add W to your mana pool) text comes inherently only for the five types of basic land (Example, Madblind Mountain, the true duals)
Because maybe they'll make an intro pack with those Wastes lands in it, and they most likely won't be full art versions, which as the other basics, are only within booster packs and fat packs so far, the same applies for a potential colorless Commander precon deck.
It's possible that Wastes basic lands only appear in OGW, but the <> symbol could easily remain in use for the future sets, because the strongest point to its favor is that now the colorless mana symbol will be different from the generic mana symbol.
The "Snow mana 2.0" argument relies on the basis that "no change this big could be introduced in the middle of a block", falls over some counter examples:
"Summon" Became "Creature -" in Classic Sixth Edition, which came between Urza's Legacy and Urza's Destiny.
Expansion symbols that reflected the rarity of the cards were introduced in Exodus, which was the last expansion of the Rath Cycle (Tempest, Stronghold and Exodus)
I didn't read the thread fully so I don't know if this had been considered, but here's another thought I had that could make this work in this draft format without having to change lots of other stuff:
(<> can be paid with either <> or one mana from an Eldrazi permanent.)
...Yeah, it's self-referential, but you get the idea. Alternatively:
(Mana from an Eldrazi permanent can be spent on <>.)
(But then we're getting back into the parasitic zone... hmm.)
That's Snow mana 2.0, which is one of the most parasitic mechanics that's been made in the game, also, there's no criteria to determine if a permanent is an "Eldrazi Permanent" (For example, Shrine of the Forsaken Gods, a land made specifically for Eldrazi decks in the same vein of Eldrazi Temple, doesn't have the word Eldrazi anywhere on its text), because that would have required the rules baggage of Tribal type being added to even the lands, as the Wastes is just a basic land, which for now, we know for sure that you can have more than 4 in your deck, as that amount limitation is overriden by the basic supertype.
When I made the post, I specifically meant "permanents with the Eldrazi subtype" (so basically Scions and Kozilek's Channeler)... but I didn't consider the Temple (which is strongly Eldrazi-flavored, but doesn't fit by my definition).
Hm... interesting. We have five Blighted lands in BFZ which are quite "waste-like" in flavor terms, but my previous theory (from quite a while ago in this thread) also said that no nonbasic lands producing ♦ would enter the battlefield untapped without a drawback. Still not sure at this point...
The only thing the colorless/generic argument has going for it is a rules clarification, it makes no sense from a design perspective when there is only 1 small set to support it. This is a new basic land and it is being introduced to us end-block, the environment that supports it MUST be right in front of us.
The reason this is being released in the second set of the block is that they needed BFZ in the format first for there to be enough support to be able to build devoid decks.
A basic land that just taps for colorless does not make sense in standard. Especially if all the support for it is from one small set. But a basic land that taps for <> where <> can be used to pay for any mana symbol in the cost of a colorless object makes perfect sense. You can build a deck with Wastes and Devoid cards in the current block and Wastes has subtle but far reaching applicability outside the block...you can crack any spellbomb with it, activate a filter land, pay for the [U] in Academy Ruins, etc. It is still a basic land with no color identity to satisfy the commander crowd so it serves that purpose as the "colorless" basic land as well.
This also explains several other things:
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 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.
d) How there can be enough support in the standard format to justify a <> basic land whatever <> means
e) Why this set and its prerelease are billed by WOTC as the best format for two-headed giant limited ever when over half the cards in draft and half in sealed you will get are from BFZ...it will be much easier for you to split cards across two decks since someone can take all the Devoid cards and build a Wastes deck.
f) What the last 10 expeditions will be, filterlands since they work so well with <>. This will preview their return to standard. Enemy battle lands will not be printed in Oath since 8 duals is too much for a small set, so we'll have 10 manlands and 10 filters as expeditions.
The "Snow mana 2.0" argument relies on the basis that "no change this big could be introduced in the middle of a block", falls over some counter examples:
"Summon" Became "Creature -" in Classic Sixth Edition, which came between Urza's Legacy and Urza's Destiny.
Expansion symbols that reflected the rarity of the cards were introduced in Exodus, which was the last expansion of the Rath Cycle (Tempest, Stronghold and Exodus)
Plus reach and deathtouch were introduced in Future Sight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thou shalt not have others of the same Legendary before me Thou shalt not frame images with the modern card face Thou shalt not change rules in vain Remember the Reserved List to keep it holy Honor thy Slivers and the symmetry of their abilities Thou shalt not kill mana burn Thou shalt not sacrifice depth for accessibility Thou shalt not steal combat damage from the stack Thou shalt tell a story through thy cards All must be one
Obviously something like this will be parasitic in the first set in appears in, it's starting!
if they introduce something new that works with 20 years of cards, its not parasitic
if they introduce something new that works only with 1 set of cards, its parasitic
splice onto arcane only works within the kamigawa block, hence its parasitic
equip works with all creatures ever printed, thus its not parasitic even as it was new
We can say Splice unto Arcane is parasitic because we now know they never supported it afterwards.
We cannot say Eldrazi Mana is parasitic in the same manner because for all we know, with the Eldrazi leaving Zendikar (Emrakul at the very least) we might see a few cards every set (or every few sets) that support it.
So yes, it will be parasitic in that it won't work with anything outside of Oath of the Gatewatch (most likely) but saying that it will parasitic as a negative ("they can't/shouldn't do this because it's parasitic") is utterly meaningless.
Which leaves it to luck. In a sealed pool, how many blighted lands do you have? 1-2 most probably, maybe less since we will have only two BFZ packs. Enough to play your 4-5 <> spells?
There's also the many producers of Eldrazi Scions in BFZ and presumably OGW as well (as well as other colorless lands like Spawning Bed, but that's still an uncommon like the Blighted lands so it's not as much of a sure thing as the Scions are). BFZ is already a lot more flush with colorless sources than most limited environments, and the presence of <>-costing effects would give the Scion-producing cards more functionality, particularly the low-cost Green ones like Blisterpod and Call the Scions (Green also has the basic-fetching spells, so G might be the go-to color for <> cards).
The "Snow mana 2.0" argument relies on the basis that "no change this big could be introduced in the middle of a block", falls over some counter examples:
"Summon" Became "Creature -" in Classic Sixth Edition, which came between Urza's Legacy and Urza's Destiny.
Expansion symbols that reflected the rarity of the cards were introduced in Exodus, which was the last expansion of the Rath Cycle (Tempest, Stronghold and Exodus)
Plus reach and deathtouch were introduced in Future Sight.
Summon I'll give you, but 'it happened in a core set, and then the small set was the first set in the block to have the change' is a little different, especially from that long ago.
Rarity isn't a game mechanic.
Reach showed up on a single futureshifted card–so it wasn't really printed in the present of Magic before the next set, Tenth Edition
Nothing before Future Sight had an ability that could be errata'd to Deathtouch; they were similar, but deathtouch was a new ability.
I'm not totally sure what side I fall on, but regardless of how things play out, if this is a sweeping errata that gives Sol Ring an ugly <><> ability, I'll be disappointed.
Alright, for the sake of reference, here's a recap of the main arguments for each side (New Symbol vs Snow 2.0)
Let's do Snow 2.0 first:
1. Large, confusing errata. New players would think that these lands create special colorless mana and that old cards create generic mana (which does not exist)
2. Strange timing. We just had a set full of colorless mana producers. They would have changed the symbol in that set if it was just a new symbol for generic mana.
3. Mark Rosewater tumblr. In his when/if column, when/if a new mana type like snow mana would return was replied to with "When"
4. Set specific flavor. The diamond shape is representative of a hedron. They would use a more generic symbol for plain colorless mana.
Now the New Symbol arguments:
1. Lack of draft support. If this is a special mana type, paying costs in spells will rely on drafting specific lands at common. There are far more colorless producers to fall back on with New Symbol
2. Parasitic set. Wizards has expressed disinterest in repeating perceived mistakes with snow mana due to lack of sales. Having set mechanics which don't extend out of their set leads to poor sales.
3. Land typing. Having no supertype means the rules would need to reference the card by name in the rules ("Basic lands with the name Wastes tap for <>" is unprecedented formatting) if they wanted Snow 2.0, they would have given it a supertype. With New Symbol, the rules text is clean and future-proof (Basic lands without a land type produce colorless mana)
4. Chaos symbol change. The Chaos symbol in rule 107.12 has been changed from {C} to {CHAOS}, potentially to open space to be used for {C}olorless
5. Precedent. This would not be the first time the terminology for colorless mana changed. See "Add to your mana pool" vs "Add 1 colorless mana to your mana pool" from Ice Age and prior
3. Land typing. Having no supertype means the rules would need to reference the card by name in the rules ("Basic lands with the name Wastes tap for <>" is unprecedented formatting) if they wanted Snow 2.0, they would have given it a supertype. With New Symbol, the rules text is clean and future-proof (Basic lands without a land type produce colorless mana)
This is the only one I take issue with. Nowhere in the rules does it say that basic lands must have their rules text defined in the comprehensive rules and not written on the card. Wastes could just have its own rules text saying add <> to your mana pool. We just haven't seen the rules text, because our only example of a Wastes happens to be a full art one.
The argument that I would add for New Mana Theory is the lack of reminder text.
This may be folded into the first argument you've listed, but I think it's important. Lack of reminder text is more consistent with a new type of mana because it essentially would function the same way that the five different types of colored mana do. Though I don't personally take issue with issuing errata on cards producing colorless mana, I don't think they would have done it without reminder text on each and every card for at least one set. It would be impossible to pick up new Kozilek and know that you can cast it with Sol Ring without making assumptions or looking it up online.
Speaking of jury, I'm beginning to wonder if WOTC maybe intentionally leaked these in order to get the community talking about this early to work out all the kinks for the general public.
Kozilek is a trickster so this may be a big trick on early spoiler leaks. Wouldn't be surprised if there were other versions leaked as time goes on.
As for colorless lands. I don't see what is wrong with it, it just means there is a cost to add powerful colorless spells to your deck, (splash a "color" to use it). Many cards require other cards to work, or work well. It's basically a build around but the build around is a land, not so bad and it incentivizes you to build more colorless spells into your deck to go along with your more powerful <> spells worst case the waste taps for 1 to help cast your truly colored spells.
The only real downside I see is the logistics of getting these lands into the draft format to support the cards that will require it, so the real issue is mainly a logistical one.
Also, I never understood the term "parasitic" in terms of magic cards. Is it supposed to be an alternate word for narrow?
The only thing the colorless/generic argument has going for it is a rules clarification, it makes no sense from a design perspective when there is only 1 small set to support it. This is a new basic land and it is being introduced to us end-block, the environment that supports it MUST be right in front of us.
The reason this is being released in the second set of the block is that they needed BFZ in the format first for there to be enough support to be able to build devoid decks.
A basic land that just taps for colorless does not make sense in standard. Especially if all the support for it is from one small set. But a basic land that taps for <> where <> can be used to pay for any mana symbol in the cost of a colorless object makes perfect sense. You can build a deck with Wastes and Devoid cards in the current block and Wastes has subtle but far reaching applicability outside the block...you can crack any spellbomb with it, activate a filter land, pay for the [U] in Academy Ruins, etc. It is still a basic land with no color identity to satisfy the commander crowd so it serves that purpose as the "colorless" basic land as well.
Are you talking about the Lorwyn filter lands ? What you're saying is because Devoid make the card colorless, you could use <><> to cast Fathom Feeder or Forerunner of Slaughter ? If so it's possible but I think it would confuse too much the new players and would be a total nightmare. Imagine for a second this means players could use <> to cast some colored cost (because of devoid) and some activated abilities or cost in the text of the card because that card has a colorless cost like Æther Spellbomb or Flight Spellbomb. Man that would be totally insane in complexity.
Speaking of jury, I'm beginning to wonder if WOTC maybe intentionally leaked these in order to get the community talking about this early to work out all the kinks for the general public.
I wonder if that's what people are thinking subconsciously. That if they argue enough for the theory they think will be better for the game, it will come true
Alright, I'm not sure where I'll get arguing with a blog post, but there are a couple of things I want to address.
The most major thing is that the blogger does not acknowledge the stronger competing theory. The opposing theory he presents states that '<> can be paid for by <> or2,' whereas the one I subscribe to states that '<> can be paid for by <> only.' His main argument against the opposition is that it is too complicated for being on a basic land, which I think is true for the hybrid-style theory, but not so for the more straightforward New Mana Theory.
Another argument he makes is that draft will consist of one pack of Oath of the Gatewatch, which isn't enough to support a new dedicated mana. The conclusion follows the premise, but the premise is false. OGW will be the first small set for which the official format will be small/small/large. Perhaps one of the reasons for this change is to help support mechanics such as this one.
Speaking of jury, I'm beginning to wonder if WOTC maybe intentionally leaked these in order to get the community talking about this early to work out all the kinks for the general public.
Of course they did. It jump started the hype train after the lackluster BFZ set. It's also no mistake that we got 2 mythics and a full-art basic land: these are basically the three cards that would not have any reminder text on them to explain the new mana symbol, due to the lack of space on them.
There are always virtual unplayables in your sealed pool. Whether it's due to high cost, poor synergy, low number of cards in the same color, or just weak cards, there are always going to be cards you just can't play in your pool.
Plus, I don't think <> costing cards will be literally unplayable in any pool. If Wastes is in the land slot, then you will at least have 4 sources in every pool. That's minimum, and more than enough for a splash.
But there has never been cards that are unplayable because you can't have the lands. They already said that BFZ full-art lands are in the land slot of the OGW boosters, with the BFZ symbol. Yes, that could be to mislead, but Wastes is identified as a Common, not a Land.
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W
Ahh, I missed that. I had heard that there are full art lands (of which Wastes is one) but not the specifics. They've had common rarity cards in the land slot before (FRF again), but since MaRo has made a direct statement that the same BFZ lands will be in OGW, then I'm inclined to believe it. He's usually cagier about it when trying to cover something up.
I don't think it's a problem for New Symbol Theory though, since there are already so many scion producers and other colorless sources in BFZ as hucka said, to go with whatever they have OGW. Under New Mana Theory though, they'll either have to a lot more support than one common slot for Wastes, or yes they'll have to arrange to supply them for Limited somehow.
(♦ can be paid with either ♦ or one mana from an Eldrazi permanent.)
...Yeah, it's self-referential, but you get the idea. Alternatively:
(Mana from an Eldrazi permanent can be spent on ♦.)
(But then we're getting back into the parasitic zone... hmm.)
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
Which is another reason I think the theory that the waste symbol is colorless only. That said, it isn't too hard for them to reserve a slot in each pack for a wastes if they wanted to. They could easily replace one common slot of each pack for a wastes slot to keep the supply of them up. Plus, as others said, there are plenty of ways to make it work, logistically. Putting them in precons and/or fatpacks, giving a small pack of them out at prerelease/release events, etc. They also don't necessarily have to supply these at limited events. If they are printed as a common the set's limited environment could very well be balanced around them being a common rather than assuming you'll just have as many as you want.
That's Snow mana 2.0, which is one of the most parasitic mechanics that's been made in the game, also, there's no criteria to determine if a permanent is an "Eldrazi Permanent" (For example, Shrine of the Forsaken Gods, a land made specifically for Eldrazi decks in the same vein of Eldrazi Temple, doesn't have the word Eldrazi anywhere on its text), because that would have required the rules baggage of Tribal type being added to even the lands, as the Wastes is just a basic land, which for now, we know for sure that you can have more than 4 in your deck, as that amount limitation is overriden by the basic supertype.
Now, I see that the greatest confusion here is about how in the first set the colorless mana is represented by the encircled number and now they introduce the new colorless mana symbol in the middle of the block, and that confusion is greater because the card that might have a reminder text on it is a full-art variant, due to mythics lacking any reminder text on them, one logical option would be that the non-full-art version of Wastes could have this text:
Wastes
Basic Land (C)
T: Add <> to your mana pool. (<> is one colorless mana)
It would need the actual rules text because so far, a basic land with no type has no rules text whatsoever, the (T: Add W to your mana pool) text comes inherently only for the five types of basic land (Example, Madblind Mountain, the true duals)
Because maybe they'll make an intro pack with those Wastes lands in it, and they most likely won't be full art versions, which as the other basics, are only within booster packs and fat packs so far, the same applies for a potential colorless Commander precon deck.
It's possible that Wastes basic lands only appear in OGW, but the <> symbol could easily remain in use for the future sets, because the strongest point to its favor is that now the colorless mana symbol will be different from the generic mana symbol.
The "Snow mana 2.0" argument relies on the basis that "no change this big could be introduced in the middle of a block", falls over some counter examples:
"Summon" Became "Creature -" in Classic Sixth Edition, which came between Urza's Legacy and Urza's Destiny.
Expansion symbols that reflected the rarity of the cards were introduced in Exodus, which was the last expansion of the Rath Cycle (Tempest, Stronghold and Exodus)
Fan of Both old and new Slivers (But the new ones are still better anyway)
C Call of Emrakul - G vs R DD: Elves vs. Goblins - W vs B DD: Divine vs. Demonic - WUB Esper Artifice - RGW Aura Dancers
WUBRG Wrath of the Reaper King - WB Men of Faith - B Mercenaries - UB Phyrexian Assault 2.0 - WU Artifacts of Empires
BR Skeleton Warriors - RG Night of The Howlpack - B Bog Murderers - BR Eldrazi Assault - BGU Ulamog's Swarm
Every single pack in Innistrad had a double faced card.
When I made the post, I specifically meant "permanents with the Eldrazi subtype" (so basically Scions and Kozilek's Channeler)... but I didn't consider the Temple (which is strongly Eldrazi-flavored, but doesn't fit by my definition).
Hm... interesting. We have five Blighted lands in BFZ which are quite "waste-like" in flavor terms, but my previous theory (from quite a while ago in this thread) also said that no nonbasic lands producing ♦ would enter the battlefield untapped without a drawback. Still not sure at this point...
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
The reason this is being released in the second set of the block is that they needed BFZ in the format first for there to be enough support to be able to build devoid decks.
A basic land that just taps for colorless does not make sense in standard. Especially if all the support for it is from one small set. But a basic land that taps for <> where <> can be used to pay for any mana symbol in the cost of a colorless object makes perfect sense. You can build a deck with Wastes and Devoid cards in the current block and Wastes has subtle but far reaching applicability outside the block...you can crack any spellbomb with it, activate a filter land, pay for the [U] in Academy Ruins, etc. It is still a basic land with no color identity to satisfy the commander crowd so it serves that purpose as the "colorless" basic land as well.
This also explains several other things:
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 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.
d) How there can be enough support in the standard format to justify a <> basic land whatever <> means
e) Why this set and its prerelease are billed by WOTC as the best format for two-headed giant limited ever when over half the cards in draft and half in sealed you will get are from BFZ...it will be much easier for you to split cards across two decks since someone can take all the Devoid cards and build a Wastes deck.
f) What the last 10 expeditions will be, filterlands since they work so well with <>. This will preview their return to standard. Enemy battle lands will not be printed in Oath since 8 duals is too much for a small set, so we'll have 10 manlands and 10 filters as expeditions.
Plus reach and deathtouch were introduced in Future Sight.
Thou shalt not frame images with the modern card face
Thou shalt not change rules in vain
Remember the Reserved List to keep it holy
Honor thy Slivers and the symmetry of their abilities
Thou shalt not kill mana burn
Thou shalt not sacrifice depth for accessibility
Thou shalt not steal combat damage from the stack
Thou shalt tell a story through thy cards
All must be one
Obviously something like this will be parasitic in the first set in appears in, it's starting!
no i mean when packing them. Like when the snow lands came out again, did they hit both the land and common slots in a pack?
We can say Splice unto Arcane is parasitic because we now know they never supported it afterwards.
We cannot say Eldrazi Mana is parasitic in the same manner because for all we know, with the Eldrazi leaving Zendikar (Emrakul at the very least) we might see a few cards every set (or every few sets) that support it.
So yes, it will be parasitic in that it won't work with anything outside of Oath of the Gatewatch (most likely) but saying that it will parasitic as a negative ("they can't/shouldn't do this because it's parasitic") is utterly meaningless.
There's also the many producers of Eldrazi Scions in BFZ and presumably OGW as well (as well as other colorless lands like Spawning Bed, but that's still an uncommon like the Blighted lands so it's not as much of a sure thing as the Scions are). BFZ is already a lot more flush with colorless sources than most limited environments, and the presence of <>-costing effects would give the Scion-producing cards more functionality, particularly the low-cost Green ones like Blisterpod and Call the Scions (Green also has the basic-fetching spells, so G might be the go-to color for <> cards).
Summon I'll give you, but 'it happened in a core set, and then the small set was the first set in the block to have the change' is a little different, especially from that long ago.
Rarity isn't a game mechanic.
Reach showed up on a single futureshifted card–so it wasn't really printed in the present of Magic before the next set, Tenth Edition
Nothing before Future Sight had an ability that could be errata'd to Deathtouch; they were similar, but deathtouch was a new ability.
I'm not totally sure what side I fall on, but regardless of how things play out, if this is a sweeping errata that gives Sol Ring an ugly <><> ability, I'll be disappointed.
Let's do Snow 2.0 first:
1. Large, confusing errata. New players would think that these lands create special colorless mana and that old cards create generic mana (which does not exist)
2. Strange timing. We just had a set full of colorless mana producers. They would have changed the symbol in that set if it was just a new symbol for generic mana.
3. Mark Rosewater tumblr. In his when/if column, when/if a new mana type like snow mana would return was replied to with "When"
4. Set specific flavor. The diamond shape is representative of a hedron. They would use a more generic symbol for plain colorless mana.
Now the New Symbol arguments:
1. Lack of draft support. If this is a special mana type, paying costs in spells will rely on drafting specific lands at common. There are far more colorless producers to fall back on with New Symbol
2. Parasitic set. Wizards has expressed disinterest in repeating perceived mistakes with snow mana due to lack of sales. Having set mechanics which don't extend out of their set leads to poor sales.
3. Land typing. Having no supertype means the rules would need to reference the card by name in the rules ("Basic lands with the name Wastes tap for <>" is unprecedented formatting) if they wanted Snow 2.0, they would have given it a supertype. With New Symbol, the rules text is clean and future-proof (Basic lands without a land type produce colorless mana)
4. Chaos symbol change. The Chaos symbol in rule 107.12 has been changed from {C} to {CHAOS}, potentially to open space to be used for {C}olorless
5. Precedent. This would not be the first time the terminology for colorless mana changed. See "Add to your mana pool" vs "Add 1 colorless mana to your mana pool" from Ice Age and prior
Did I miss anything?
360-cube - Suggestions welcome!
(1) A reprint of a card that used to say "add {1}" and now says "add <>".
(2) A brand-new card that says "add {1}".
Until one of those things happen, the jury will continue to deliberate.
(1) A reprint of a card that used to say "add {1}" and now says "add <>".
(2) A brand-new card that says "add {1}".
Until one of those things happen, the jury will continue to deliberate.
This is the only one I take issue with. Nowhere in the rules does it say that basic lands must have their rules text defined in the comprehensive rules and not written on the card. Wastes could just have its own rules text saying add <> to your mana pool. We just haven't seen the rules text, because our only example of a Wastes happens to be a full art one.
The argument that I would add for New Mana Theory is the lack of reminder text.
This may be folded into the first argument you've listed, but I think it's important. Lack of reminder text is more consistent with a new type of mana because it essentially would function the same way that the five different types of colored mana do. Though I don't personally take issue with issuing errata on cards producing colorless mana, I don't think they would have done it without reminder text on each and every card for at least one set. It would be impossible to pick up new Kozilek and know that you can cast it with Sol Ring without making assumptions or looking it up online.
As for colorless lands. I don't see what is wrong with it, it just means there is a cost to add powerful colorless spells to your deck, (splash a "color" to use it). Many cards require other cards to work, or work well. It's basically a build around but the build around is a land, not so bad and it incentivizes you to build more colorless spells into your deck to go along with your more powerful <> spells worst case the waste taps for 1 to help cast your truly colored spells.
The only real downside I see is the logistics of getting these lands into the draft format to support the cards that will require it, so the real issue is mainly a logistical one.
Also, I never understood the term "parasitic" in terms of magic cards. Is it supposed to be an alternate word for narrow?
Are you talking about the Lorwyn filter lands ? What you're saying is because Devoid make the card colorless, you could use <><> to cast Fathom Feeder or Forerunner of Slaughter ? If so it's possible but I think it would confuse too much the new players and would be a total nightmare. Imagine for a second this means players could use <> to cast some colored cost (because of devoid) and some activated abilities or cost in the text of the card because that card has a colorless cost like Æther Spellbomb or Flight Spellbomb. Man that would be totally insane in complexity.
I wonder if that's what people are thinking subconsciously. That if they argue enough for the theory they think will be better for the game, it will come true
Alright, I'm not sure where I'll get arguing with a blog post, but there are a couple of things I want to address.
The most major thing is that the blogger does not acknowledge the stronger competing theory. The opposing theory he presents states that '<> can be paid for by <> or 2,' whereas the one I subscribe to states that '<> can be paid for by <> only.' His main argument against the opposition is that it is too complicated for being on a basic land, which I think is true for the hybrid-style theory, but not so for the more straightforward New Mana Theory.
Another argument he makes is that draft will consist of one pack of Oath of the Gatewatch, which isn't enough to support a new dedicated mana. The conclusion follows the premise, but the premise is false. OGW will be the first small set for which the official format will be small/small/large. Perhaps one of the reasons for this change is to help support mechanics such as this one.
Of course they did. It jump started the hype train after the lackluster BFZ set. It's also no mistake that we got 2 mythics and a full-art basic land: these are basically the three cards that would not have any reminder text on them to explain the new mana symbol, due to the lack of space on them.
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W