Regarding distribution of Wastes for limited, the only precedent we have is the snow-basic lands from Coldsnap, which were in a common slot and had to be drafted (you could not add additional snow basics to your deck, only plain basics).
If colorless is to be a draft archetype, and they're not going to be giving out extra copies at each game, Wizards can simply print Wastes multiple times on the common sheet. There could be multiple artworks of it, and we just happened to get the last one because it's full art.
In addition, it could also be listed on the basic land sheet , giving the opportunity for a booster pack to have a Wastes in the land slot and in one of the common slots.
And going forward, if it is the new colorless basic land (as it really seems to be in my opinion), it can be added to the basic land sheet for booster packs and show up in the land slot (not to mention all the other non-basics that can generate colorless).
I essentially agree with this post (aside from probably the stuff about parasitism*) and think this is a good way of looking at it. I also could be biased and easily wrong here, but I think people who find this more difficult to conceptualize than <> being a complete rebranding of colorless mana are in the minority.
*Just as an aside, I'm too lazy to fetch a source right now but Mark Rosewater has said before (I believe on his Tumblr) that if they were ever to create a sixth color it would not affect the design of all sets and would be a block-specific thing. I see <> more as "special colorless mana" than a "sixth color", but it still makes ya think.
The BFZ black was the last block still in development when the block system changed. BFZ was for the most part complete, and Oath was in development, and themes were laid out for Set 3. Set 3 was scrapped and themes from it were moved to Oath.
It wouldn't be a massive design overhaul at all. Did you see the post I made about 3 or so pages back indicating the rules changes I would believe were most likely? It was 4 rules and an added rule if I remember correctly. So not massive at all. Also only 318 or so cards would receive cosmetic errata. Again, almost no impact.
As far as making things difficult to understand, it actually would clear up an issue that people in this very thread are having. I'd wager that 1/3 of the posts are misunderstandings about Colorless Mana and Generic Mana Costs. This change would clear that up.
I don't think adding phyrexian to your pool is useful unless you're trying to near death experience or something.
Seems you and many others have trouble reading reminder text...that was on every card with the phyrexian mana symbol. It can be paid with (Appropriate color) or 2 life. Even when Elemental Resonance adds mana from a permanent that has the phyrexain mana symbol on it, Resonance only adds the appropriate color mana because the 2 life is an alternate payment option.
The alternate payment option means noting to your mana pool because it's not mana.
I wasn't aware such a card existed, but it raises a question with the exclusively colorless theory. Currently, it adds colorless mana to your mana pool equal to the generic mana component of the cards cost. Would you have it add {<>} to your pool? Currently, it's more intuitive than under the proposed change. (That being said, it's a single card, so I doubt that alone would stop them.)
No, the rules are very specific that the only types of mana that can be in your mana pool are W, U, B, R, G, and X, and then they can have riders attached to them (like S, or can only be used for whatever). Phyrexian mana symbols CANNOT exist anywhere outside of a cost.
I essentially agree with this post (aside from probably the stuff about parasitism*) and think this is a good way of looking at it. I also could be biased and easily wrong here, but I think people who find this more difficult to conceptualize than <> being a complete rebranding of colorless mana are in the minority.
*Just as an aside, I'm too lazy to fetch a source right now but Mark Rosewater has said before (I believe on his Tumblr) that if they were ever to create a sixth color it would not affect the design of all sets and would be a block-specific thing. I see <> more as "special colorless mana" than a "sixth color", but it still makes ya think.
The BFZ black was the last block still in development when the block system changed. BFZ was for the most part complete, and Oath was in development, and themes were laid out for Set 3. Set 3 was scrapped and themes from it were moved to Oath.
It wouldn't be a massive design overhaul at all. Did you see the post I made about 3 or so pages back indicating the rules changes I would believe were most likely? It was 4 rules and an added rule if I remember correctly. So not massive at all. Also only 318 or so cards would receive cosmetic errata. Again, almost no impact.
As far as making things difficult to understand, it actually would clear up an issue that people in this very thread are having. I'd wager that 1/3 of the posts are misunderstandings about Colorless Mana and Generic Mana Costs. This change would clear that up.
@ tgambitg- You keep bringing that up but your wrong. MaRo said that the change to 2 set blocks happened when design handed the BfZ file over to development. They hadn't even designed anything for Oath yet. More importantly they never got to a third set for it. If they had things going for a third set they would have waited till the next large set to do the 2 set block change over, they wouldn't just scrap all that work then have to start fresh on something else so late. They have a very small window where they can scrap something if its not working, so they have to have an exceedingly good reason exercise that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
Call me crazy if you want, but I'm half expecting that Eldrazi take over the plane and thus OGW will be an all colorless set (maybe with the exception of a few planeswalkers). Thus <> functions as a 6th color (without actually being a 6th color in the rules), and can have enough cards to warrant playing, while still being limited to one set (and possible more in the future; just not something that appears in every set/block). You heard it here first
@ tgambitg- You keep bringing that up but your wrong. MaRo said that the change to 2 set blocks happened when design handed the BfZ file over to development. They hadn't even designed anything for Oath yet. More importantly they never got to a third set for it. If they had things going for a third set they would have waited till the next large set to do the 2 set block change over, they wouldn't just scrap all that work then have to start fresh on something else so late. They have a very small window where they can scrap something if its not working, so they have to have an exceedingly good reason exercise that.
1.) I think the design period for sets generally overlap at least partially (the first stage of design - vision - alone lasts six months). If so, then handing over the file from design to development means, yes, they have already started design on OGW.
2.) Even if design hasn't started yet for OGW you have to count in that the block structure and distribution of themes probably happened already in exploratory design. It's easy to imagine that they e. g. looked at a three-set block and three Eldrazi titans and someone set "I have an idea how to split the block". That would explain quite well, why we have seen only one titan in the first set, but creates a question mark for the second one now.
Nowadays design happens before "design" happens. At the very least they have pinned down some vision for which ideas they do not touch in the first set to save for the two upcoming sets.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Call me crazy if you want, but I'm half expecting that Eldrazi take over the plane and thus OGW will be an all colorless set (maybe with the exception of a few planeswalkers). Thus <> functions as a 6th color (without actually being a 6th color in the rules), and can have enough cards to warrant playing, while still being limited to one set (and possible more in the future; just not something that appears in every set/block). You heard it here first
Well, Ally Encampment mentions "Ally Spells" and so far there are only Ally creatures so I'd assume that hints at some ally spells that are not creatures in the next set since Allies are only in Zendikar.
Call me crazy if you want, but I'm half expecting that Eldrazi take over the plane and thus OGW will be an all colorless set (maybe with the exception of a few planeswalkers). Thus <> functions as a 6th color (without actually being a 6th color in the rules), and can have enough cards to warrant playing, while still being limited to one set (and possible more in the future; just not something that appears in every set/block). You heard it here first
Well, Ally Encampment mentions "Ally Spells" and so far there are only Ally creatures so I'd assume that hints at some ally spells that are not creatures in the next set since Allies are only in Zendikar.
In the old days they just said creature spells as that was the only thing with the creature type.
They had to change that with Tribal spells.
While it still "could" say specificly only creature spells, but that would be kinda unnecessary words and just make the card slightly worse for no real reason.
I would be quite shocked to see tribal spells or any non-creature ally (Gideon is a pseudo ally, but cant be played with the Camp, so that at least a downer).
Call me crazy if you want, but I'm half expecting that Eldrazi take over the plane and thus OGW will be an all colorless set (maybe with the exception of a few planeswalkers). Thus <> functions as a 6th color (without actually being a 6th color in the rules), and can have enough cards to warrant playing, while still being limited to one set (and possible more in the future; just not something that appears in every set/block). You heard it here first
Well, Ally Encampment mentions "Ally Spells" and so far there are only Ally creatures so I'd assume that hints at some ally spells that are not creatures in the next set since Allies are only in Zendikar.
In the old days they just said creature spells as that was the only thing with the creature type.
They had to change that with Tribal spells.
While it still "could" say specificly only creature spells, but that would be kinda unnecessary words and just make the card slightly worse for no real reason.
I would be quite shocked to see tribal spells or any non-creature ally (Gideon is a pseudo ally, but cant be played with the Camp, so that at least a downer).
Makes sense, but a spell like Join the Ranks or similar could have the tribal typing.
They won't do it, though. Wizards consider Tribal card type a failure. If you wanted to use it consistently, quite a lot of cards would have to be Tribal, but the benefit of the type is small. Since its debut in Lorwyn, they only returned it once (Rise of the Eldrazi) since they needed a good way to gather all Eldrazi-themed cards together, but with devoid, they don't even need that.
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up already, but it seems odd that the premiere <> card, the <> basic land, and an example of <> mana on a nonbasic land all leaked at the same time. Since the concept of <> mana is such a huge addition to MTG, it all just seems very convenient that a spell, a basic, an a nonbasic land would all be leaked simultaneously; as if a story is being told to us, and we need to have as much information as possible to begin wild speculation of that story. What makes this particularly interesting is the creature bringing that information. Kozilek, The Butcher of Truth, The Great Distortion... If there was ever an Eldrazi that would purposely try to mislead us, it's him. I wonder if the whole package is WotC messing with us by giving us "Kozilek's version" of the true leaks.
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up already, but it seems odd that the premiere <> card, the <> basic land, and an example of <> mana on a nonbasic land all leaked at the same time. Since the concept of <> mana is such a huge addition to MTG, it all just seems very convenient that a spell, a basic, an a nonbasic land would all be leaked simultaneously; as if a story is being told to us, and we need to have as much information as possible to begin wild speculation of that story. What makes this particularly interesting is the creature bringing that information. Kozilek, The Butcher of Truth, The Great Distortion... If there was ever an Eldrazi that would purposely try to mislead us, it's him. I wonder if the whole package is WotC messing with us by giving us "Kozilek's version" of the true leaks.
I mentioned it in one of these threads, like WOTC intentionally leaked it in order to get the community working on it so when it went wide we would have a head start on explaining it to the newer players.
What makes this particularly interesting is the creature bringing that information. Kozilek, The Butcher of Truth, The Great Distortion... If there was ever an Eldrazi that would purposely try to mislead us, it's him. I wonder if the whole package is WotC messing with us by giving us "Kozilek's version" of the true leaks.
I'd give that some credit since those cards are out, and wizards has to know, why shouldn't they just officially spoil them?
it'd be cruel tho if the leaked cards are only like 60% reality and just flavorful for the set without being exact cards. ha, kozilek's version of them. thats funny and clever
It just makes no sense if all the Eldrazi Scions and Kozilek's Channelers can't help pay for Kozilek. Logically, that means that colorless mana has to be able to help pay for <>.
Generating 2 doesn't help pay for 8<><> ?
If there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that I can cast Kozilek with 2 Kozilek's channelers, 4 eldrazi scions and two wastes!
Call me crazy if you want, but I'm half expecting that Eldrazi take over the plane and thus OGW will be an all colorless set (maybe with the exception of a few planeswalkers). Thus <> functions as a 6th color (without actually being a 6th color in the rules), and can have enough cards to warrant playing, while still being limited to one set (and possible more in the future; just not something that appears in every set/block). You heard it here first
Well, Ally Encampment mentions "Ally Spells" and so far there are only Ally creatures so I'd assume that hints at some ally spells that are not creatures in the next set since Allies are only in Zendikar.
@ tgambitg- You keep bringing that up but your wrong. MaRo said that the change to 2 set blocks happened when design handed the BfZ file over to development. They hadn't even designed anything for Oath yet. More importantly they never got to a third set for it. If they had things going for a third set they would have waited till the next large set to do the 2 set block change over, they wouldn't just scrap all that work then have to start fresh on something else so late. They have a very small window where they can scrap something if its not working, so they have to have an exceedingly good reason exercise that.
1.) I think the design period for sets generally overlap at least partially (the first stage of design - vision - alone lasts six months). If so, then handing over the file from design to development means, yes, they have already started design on OGW.
2.) Even if design hasn't started yet for OGW you have to count in that the block structure and distribution of themes probably happened already in exploratory design. It's easy to imagine that they e. g. looked at a three-set block and three Eldrazi titans and someone set "I have an idea how to split the block". That would explain quite well, why we have seen only one titan in the first set, but creates a question mark for the second one now.
Nowadays design happens before "design" happens. At the very least they have pinned down some vision for which ideas they do not touch in the first set to save for the two upcoming sets.
Let me be more clear. MaRo stated, not once but twice, that they never made it to a third set for BfZ block because decision to change to 2 set blocks happened so early. They don't begin work on the next set until the previous ones has been through development. Plus as MaRo stated the had just handed the design file over. Even if the where starting to design cards for OGW, it was literally just that, just starting to design some cards. The design teams need to look at whats come before which you cant do if whats before it isn't actually done yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
They don't begin work on the next set until the previous ones has been through development.
This is false. There is considerable overlap between sets. For example, they were working on both Khans of Tarkir and Dragons of Tarkir before they started with Fate Reforged. When design on FRF started, all the 10 clan mechanics from Khans and Dragons were known, they just had to decide how to do the split in FRF (source: Drive to Work podcasts on FRF I have a Lost Vikings Avatar).
They don't begin work on the next set until the previous ones has been through development.
This is false. There is considerable overlap between sets. For example, they were working on both Khans of Tarkir and Dragons of Tarkir before they started with Fate Reforged. When design on FRF started, all the 10 clan mechanics from Khans and Dragons were known, they just had to decide how to do the split in FRF (source: Drive to Work podcasts on FRF I have a Lost Vikings Avatar).
For what it's worth, that's an exceptional block to cite as an example because Fate Reforged was specifically designed to be drafted with both Khans and Dragons of Tarkir... they purposefully designed the last set before the second in order to more effectively bridge the gap.
Let me be more clear. MaRo stated, not once but twice, that they never made it to a third set for BfZ block because decision to change to 2 set blocks happened so early. They don't begin work on the next set until the previous ones has been through development. Plus as MaRo stated the had just handed the design file over. Even if the where starting to design cards for OGW, it was literally just that, just starting to design some cards. The design teams need to look at whats come before which you cant do if whats before it isn't actually done yet.
It is unclear though what "never made it to" means. Does it mean they planned already for two blocks in exploratory design? Does it mean they planned for three sets in exploratory design, but changed it to the two-set plan before starting BfZ-block design proper? Does it mean they started BfZ-block design with three sets in mind, but the week before they would start the vision stage of set three the decision to switch to the two-set paradigm is announced and they had to go back on their work and reconsider their two sets alread in the work - rearranging the pieces of what they had planned?
All three options are on the table from the statement you reference (at least from the one I read - if he stated it twice, there might be a quote making things more explicit). To clarify: For me there is a wide gap in the timeline between "never started design of set three" and "never developed any preliminary plans with a third set in mind".
I cannot take the statement seriously that you think they finish development of a set before they start design of the next set. Have you never heard of a set stealing individual cards and/or mechanics from a future set? How would that be possible without an overlap in time?
EDIT: For reference:
Quote from Mark Rosewater, 2015-11-28 »
Lock is on late development. Stock is in early development.
It's certainly possible they didn't change the colorless symbol until set 2 because it would have given away a major ogw spoiler. Sure they did eye of uginan generic costsarksteel shield, and the preview of the dragonfire vial but that didn't really spoil anything other than that something called eldrazi exist and there were 2 new artifacts coming. Changing the colorless symbol in set one would pretty well give away the new mechanic since the difference between colorless mana and generic costs didn't matter.
Yet what they did do is make their sets consistent with each other, because they had planned RotE long before zendikar was released, being developed side by side. Making intentional preview cards like goyf or eye of ugin is just them trying to have a little fun with their game, pique the curiosity of the playerbase and get them guessing. Its done cleverly and professionally when its done. Errataing a huge chunk of the block mid-block is the kind of thing wizards would only do in a desperate mistake, if they made a critical printing error on lots of cards. They'd be loathe to knowingly introduce so many cards with the wrong templating, when its so very relevant to the set they are developing.
Because remember, these sets aren't created in isolation, they aren't cast in iron before the next one released. With a mechanic like this being developed so early into the set, they'd have plenty of time to come up with a grand scheme for how the block mechanics would work. It would be a non-starter to R&D to errata so many cards from set 1 in set 2. They wouldn't look at it and say "But this is the only way we can maintain the surprise factor!", they'd scrap the idea and try to see if it could be reworked into the block structure so the whole block is consistent. The obvious solution is that if they DID want to errata colorless once and for all, they'd do it in the first set, and have it be the hook for BFZ, and work on a new mechanic for OGW. As BFZ was severely deficient in original mechanics, this wouldn't be a hard sell. Its not like BFZ had something special planned like and overarching block mechanic of morph or DFC that would be hell to tear down and introduce in set 2.
That inconsistency is just too glaring for people to brush aside when they hope for a colorless-errata in OGW. It can't be easily rationalized or excused, theres no good reason why Wizards would work themselves into a corner and make such a mistake in templating in a change designed for the sake of clearing up templating, when it would be so easy to avoid and work around when planning down the line. Can we try to come up with fanciful scenarios to explain it? Maybe, but they're all as unlikely as the next. Will it be a dramatic thematic change to MTG as a game, where Kozilek has distorted the essence of magic itself and fundamentally changed the nature of 'mana', in a way that would give brady dommermuth a hard-on? Its possible. So is the vikings winning the superbowl
The errata isn't a big deal. It is just changing the 1 to a diamond. It needs all of a one sentence explanation. They've done lots of crazier things like changing how deathtouch works 2 core sets in a row and only 2 years after creating the keyword. The real change with the colorless is the future implications, not the tiny little errata to a few hundred cards. That by itself is nothing compared to how much some of the old cards have changed in the past, such as time vault. I can certainly understand the concern about the potential change to having a potential 6th "color" and how it'll affect future artifacts and non-artifact colorless cards, though. That's a potentially big change. It could even lead to decently costed colorless instants like 2<><> destroy target nonland permanent. We might even get a new leatherback baloth that's 5/5 for <><><> due to the difficulty of building a heavily colorless deck. Assuming colorless doesn't get that many <> cards at a time, it might eventually amass a "5 colored" commander deck's worth of nice stuff considering it can do anything, just not super efficiently.
It could even lead to decently costed colorless instants like 2<><> destroy target nonland permanent. We might even get a new leatherback baloth that's 5/5 for <><><> due to the difficulty of building a heavily colorless deck. Assuming colorless doesn't get that many <> cards at a time, it might eventually amass a "5 colored" commander deck's worth of nice stuff considering it can do anything, just not super efficiently.
Thank goodness people like you don't work at wizards. 4 colorless maelstrom pulse? 3 colorless baloth? Do you even understand what the color pie is? Absolutely broken cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If colorless is to be a draft archetype, and they're not going to be giving out extra copies at each game, Wizards can simply print Wastes multiple times on the common sheet. There could be multiple artworks of it, and we just happened to get the last one because it's full art.
In addition, it could also be listed on the basic land sheet , giving the opportunity for a booster pack to have a Wastes in the land slot and in one of the common slots.
And going forward, if it is the new colorless basic land (as it really seems to be in my opinion), it can be added to the basic land sheet for booster packs and show up in the land slot (not to mention all the other non-basics that can generate colorless).
The BFZ black was the last block still in development when the block system changed. BFZ was for the most part complete, and Oath was in development, and themes were laid out for Set 3. Set 3 was scrapped and themes from it were moved to Oath.
It wouldn't be a massive design overhaul at all. Did you see the post I made about 3 or so pages back indicating the rules changes I would believe were most likely? It was 4 rules and an added rule if I remember correctly. So not massive at all. Also only 318 or so cards would receive cosmetic errata. Again, almost no impact.
As far as making things difficult to understand, it actually would clear up an issue that people in this very thread are having. I'd wager that 1/3 of the posts are misunderstandings about Colorless Mana and Generic Mana Costs. This change would clear that up.
@ tgambitg- You keep bringing that up but your wrong. MaRo said that the change to 2 set blocks happened when design handed the BfZ file over to development. They hadn't even designed anything for Oath yet. More importantly they never got to a third set for it. If they had things going for a third set they would have waited till the next large set to do the 2 set block change over, they wouldn't just scrap all that work then have to start fresh on something else so late. They have a very small window where they can scrap something if its not working, so they have to have an exceedingly good reason exercise that.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
1.) I think the design period for sets generally overlap at least partially (the first stage of design - vision - alone lasts six months). If so, then handing over the file from design to development means, yes, they have already started design on OGW.
2.) Even if design hasn't started yet for OGW you have to count in that the block structure and distribution of themes probably happened already in exploratory design. It's easy to imagine that they e. g. looked at a three-set block and three Eldrazi titans and someone set "I have an idea how to split the block". That would explain quite well, why we have seen only one titan in the first set, but creates a question mark for the second one now.
Nowadays design happens before "design" happens. At the very least they have pinned down some vision for which ideas they do not touch in the first set to save for the two upcoming sets.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Nameless Inversion can be cast off of Ally Encampment
In the old days they just said creature spells as that was the only thing with the creature type.
They had to change that with Tribal spells.
While it still "could" say specificly only creature spells, but that would be kinda unnecessary words and just make the card slightly worse for no real reason.
I would be quite shocked to see tribal spells or any non-creature ally (Gideon is a pseudo ally, but cant be played with the Camp, so that at least a downer).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
They won't do it, though. Wizards consider Tribal card type a failure. If you wanted to use it consistently, quite a lot of cards would have to be Tribal, but the benefit of the type is small. Since its debut in Lorwyn, they only returned it once (Rise of the Eldrazi) since they needed a good way to gather all Eldrazi-themed cards together, but with devoid, they don't even need that.
Basically, Tribal is Magic's Godzilla Threshold (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodzillaThreshold) -- it would only be the very last resort.
Memento Mori, if the nineth lion ate the sun.
I mentioned it in one of these threads, like WOTC intentionally leaked it in order to get the community working on it so when it went wide we would have a head start on explaining it to the newer players.
I'd give that some credit since those cards are out, and wizards has to know, why shouldn't they just officially spoil them?
it'd be cruel tho if the leaked cards are only like 60% reality and just flavorful for the set without being exact cards. ha, kozilek's version of them. thats funny and clever
Generating 2 doesn't help pay for 8<><> ?
If there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that I can cast Kozilek with 2 Kozilek's channelers, 4 eldrazi scions and two wastes!
I don't think it is hinting at anything, since Tribal and things like it are gone. They are just making sure the rules are covered.
Let me be more clear. MaRo stated, not once but twice, that they never made it to a third set for BfZ block because decision to change to 2 set blocks happened so early. They don't begin work on the next set until the previous ones has been through development. Plus as MaRo stated the had just handed the design file over. Even if the where starting to design cards for OGW, it was literally just that, just starting to design some cards. The design teams need to look at whats come before which you cant do if whats before it isn't actually done yet.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
This is false. There is considerable overlap between sets. For example, they were working on both Khans of Tarkir and Dragons of Tarkir before they started with Fate Reforged. When design on FRF started, all the 10 clan mechanics from Khans and Dragons were known, they just had to decide how to do the split in FRF (source:
Drive to Work podcasts on FRFI have a Lost Vikings Avatar).Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
For what it's worth, that's an exceptional block to cite as an example because Fate Reforged was specifically designed to be drafted with both Khans and Dragons of Tarkir... they purposefully designed the last set before the second in order to more effectively bridge the gap.
It is unclear though what "never made it to" means. Does it mean they planned already for two blocks in exploratory design? Does it mean they planned for three sets in exploratory design, but changed it to the two-set plan before starting BfZ-block design proper? Does it mean they started BfZ-block design with three sets in mind, but the week before they would start the vision stage of set three the decision to switch to the two-set paradigm is announced and they had to go back on their work and reconsider their two sets alread in the work - rearranging the pieces of what they had planned?
All three options are on the table from the statement you reference (at least from the one I read - if he stated it twice, there might be a quote making things more explicit). To clarify: For me there is a wide gap in the timeline between "never started design of set three" and "never developed any preliminary plans with a third set in mind".
I cannot take the statement seriously that you think they finish development of a set before they start design of the next set. Have you never heard of a set stealing individual cards and/or mechanics from a future set? How would that be possible without an overlap in time?
EDIT: For reference:
Clearly there is overlap for development.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Because remember, these sets aren't created in isolation, they aren't cast in iron before the next one released. With a mechanic like this being developed so early into the set, they'd have plenty of time to come up with a grand scheme for how the block mechanics would work. It would be a non-starter to R&D to errata so many cards from set 1 in set 2. They wouldn't look at it and say "But this is the only way we can maintain the surprise factor!", they'd scrap the idea and try to see if it could be reworked into the block structure so the whole block is consistent. The obvious solution is that if they DID want to errata colorless once and for all, they'd do it in the first set, and have it be the hook for BFZ, and work on a new mechanic for OGW. As BFZ was severely deficient in original mechanics, this wouldn't be a hard sell. Its not like BFZ had something special planned like and overarching block mechanic of morph or DFC that would be hell to tear down and introduce in set 2.
That inconsistency is just too glaring for people to brush aside when they hope for a colorless-errata in OGW. It can't be easily rationalized or excused, theres no good reason why Wizards would work themselves into a corner and make such a mistake in templating in a change designed for the sake of clearing up templating, when it would be so easy to avoid and work around when planning down the line. Can we try to come up with fanciful scenarios to explain it? Maybe, but they're all as unlikely as the next. Will it be a dramatic thematic change to MTG as a game, where Kozilek has distorted the essence of magic itself and fundamentally changed the nature of 'mana', in a way that would give brady dommermuth a hard-on? Its possible. So is the vikings winning the superbowl
Thank goodness people like you don't work at wizards. 4 colorless maelstrom pulse? 3 colorless baloth? Do you even understand what the color pie is? Absolutely broken cards.