The debate is over. <> is the new colorless mana symbol, nothing more, nothing less. Check the 'filter expedition' thread for proof.
Sorry, Team Snow.
Well, I must admit I'm surprised.
I've gotten pretty used to arguing on the wrong side of these things, like "Kiora's not gonna be on Theros" and "Tarkir is not wedge world", or rather, telling people to stop saying that it's obvious when it's not. I've always been humble (or tried to be) when I've turned out to be arguing for people to hold back, and this time will not be an exception.
Well done, team purely colorless!
On the other hand, while I felt that it was far from clear what was true, and argued to the bitter end for team snow, I must admit I prefer this from a gameplay point of view, so I'm not to fussed by being wrong.
EDIT: I do, however, think it's dumb that this change happened midblock. Having things in limited with different templates will annoy me to no end...
Out of many changes wizards has made over the years this one doesn't even come close to being the most confusing, which I believe is "Play" on so many old cards, mostly on playing spells, becoming casting spells, or the much forgotten "successfully cast spell" Though looking at just the new cards it all becomes much clearer and easier to learn and players can find the old cards with different words and symbols after they "get" magic.
Though many are missing the point, are you teaching players with a mix of old and new cards? If you are then I think we've encountered the biggest problem with your teaching method.
The debate is over. <> is the new colorless mana symbol, nothing more, nothing less. Check the 'filter expedition' thread for proof.
Sorry, Team Snow.
Well, I must admit I'm surprised.
I've gotten pretty used to arguing on the wrong side of these things, like "Kiora's not gonna be on Theros" and "Tarkir is not wedge world", or rather, telling people to stop saying that it's obvious when it's not. I've always been humble (or tried to be) when I've turned out to be arguing for people to hold back, and this time will not be an exception.
Well done, team purely colorless!
On the other hand, while I felt that it was far from clear what was true, and argued to the bitter end for team snow, I must admit I prefer this from a gameplay point of view, so I'm not to fussed by being wrong.
EDIT: I do, however, think it's dumb that this change happened midblock. Having things in limited with different templates will annoy me to no end...
I heard that. The lack of symmetry is gonna bug me bigtime. Shoulda been a thing form the start of BFZ
I have neither the skill to correctly and accurately analyze this set in the context of current and future formats after 12 hours of exposure, nor the hubris to delude myself into believing that I do.
Hm... interesting. I guess I didn't really think about this much until now, but I realized that all sources of mana provide a "color" now (speaking loosely here, obviously ♦ isn't a color, but I mean that there are things that require it as though it were like a sixth color).
So most of the "utility" lands we had before, such as Blighted lands, tap for colorless. Before these ♦ costs came around, colorless mana was (almost) always worse than colored mana when it comes to spending it, and thus you had to watch out to make sure you didn't have too many of those. But now... that's not always the case anymore, as it seems like these actually want you to play with those lands... not sure what this means for future lands.
My argument would be that yeah it's 2 <><> and specifically cast with cards with that on it, this that's why wastes are in the set and filter lands have been changed. This makes devoid cards in a wastes deck still be all colorless but use battle lands to get that colored mana you need for spells and the wastes or filters for the <> in these spells. Why would you even need wastes if you could just spend 10 mana, 2 colorless and 8 any other color? It seems kinda pointless to errata all land
Oh c'mon Benalicious Hero, it's not about being smug or not. If anything has taught us about assumptions and/or educated guesses ever since we learn how to do/make things, it was always gonna be Occam's Razor.
WotC is making a universal game for folks around the world. The game cannot be made more complex than it already is. 5 colors is already hard to handle, let alone a 6th, or some game-sweeping change that will alter the way we play. The only path Magic can grow is to make it simpler, not harder. How else would Magic reach the stars, as the biggest card game today?
Like I said, 5/5 for effort. But if there's one thing psychology taught us, it's that you might have conditioned yourself to the fact that your prerogative was absolute and you willing to dig deeper to defend yourself, at any cost. One thing we know with a deep hole is that it's harder to get out from.
If anyone just stop and think of the bigger picture; and no, Magic isn't created for only U.S citizens, isn't just for big, fat, smelly fanboys who love boob armor. Magic is for the young, the old, the new, the experienced. Does not take sides into gender, or race, or color. We've become a global game, a global audience to reach out. Your wanting the game to reach supposed new heights, and the methodology to reach them does not match with the viewpoints of the world.
We need Magic to become more layman. And the sooner you realized this, the sooner you leave that hole.
I could be wrong about things the next day. But if I use how WotC would think of Magic globally, it might help a little more than you think.
Oh c'mon Benalicious Hero, it's not about being smug or not. If anything has taught us about assumptions and/or educated guesses ever since we learn how to do/make things, it was always gonna be Occam's Razor.
WotC is making a universal game for folks around the world. The game cannot be made more complex than it already is. 5 colors is already hard to handle, let alone a 6th, or some game-sweeping change that will alter the way we play. The only path Magic can grow is to make it simpler, not harder. How else would Magic reach the stars, as the biggest card game today?
Like I said, 5/5 for effort. But if there's one thing psychology taught us, it's that you might have conditioned yourself to the fact that your prerogative was absolute and you willing to dig deeper to defend yourself, at any cost. One thing we know with a deep hole is that it's harder to get out from.
If anyone just stop and think of the bigger picture; and no, Magic isn't created for only U.S citizens, isn't just for big, fat, smelly fanboys who love boob armor. Magic is for the young, the old, the new, the experienced. Does not take sides into gender, or race, or color. We've become a global game, a global audience to reach out. Your wanting the game to reach supposed new heights, and the methodology to reach them does not match with the viewpoints of the world.
We need Magic to become more layman. And the sooner you realized this, the sooner you leave that hole.
I could be wrong about things the next day. But if I use how WotC would think of Magic globally, it might help a little more than you think.
I think the point of contention was never going for something more complex. Many of us arguing for snow were arguing for something that, and I still believe this even in light of being wrong with regards to the outcome, snow WAS the more simple solution. Purely colorless has a messy limited problem, while snow 2.0 would just be parasitic.
The thing that was overwhelmingly annoying in this thread, and that, as a whole, appears to absent in the victory (which is nice) was the horrendous sense of arrogance (on both sides, but more so for purely colorless) that their side was right. The one thing I've made sure to do, in every one of these arguments (the ones listed in my previous post) is point out that stating "this is true" and "your wrong" without proof is not the way to discuss things, and on the tail end of it, even if you were right, that contribution was worthless.
In much the same way, saying purely colorless was always the only way it could have gone is, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest. Yes, there were ideas that weren't possible, with people fervently standing in their corners anyway, but in the end snow had merits and no fundamental problems (except maybe parasitism, which Wizards has done before.)
Take all this with a grain of salt though. I don't think you were being that bad in comparison to some of the other people in this thread. I'm simply trying to describe why your reply may have come off as "smug".
Oh c'mon Benalicious Hero, it's not about being smug or not. If anything has taught us about assumptions and/or educated guesses ever since we learn how to do/make things, it was always gonna be Occam's Razor.
WotC is making a universal game for folks around the world. The game cannot be made more complex than it already is. 5 colors is already hard to handle, let alone a 6th, or some game-sweeping change that will alter the way we play. The only path Magic can grow is to make it simpler, not harder. How else would Magic reach the stars, as the biggest card game today?
Like I said, 5/5 for effort. But if there's one thing psychology taught us, it's that you might have conditioned yourself to the fact that your prerogative was absolute and you willing to dig deeper to defend yourself, at any cost. One thing we know with a deep hole is that it's harder to get out from.
If anyone just stop and think of the bigger picture; and no, Magic isn't created for only U.S citizens, isn't just for big, fat, smelly fanboys who love boob armor. Magic is for the young, the old, the new, the experienced. Does not take sides into gender, or race, or color. We've become a global game, a global audience to reach out. Your wanting the game to reach supposed new heights, and the methodology to reach them does not match with the viewpoints of the world.
We need Magic to become more layman. And the sooner you realized this, the sooner you leave that hole.
I could be wrong about things the next day. But if I use how WotC would think of Magic globally, it might help a little more than you think.
I think the point of contention was never going for something more complex. Many of us arguing for snow were arguing for something that, and I still believe this even in light of being wrong with regards to the outcome, snow WAS the more simple solution. Purely colorless has a messy limited problem, while snow 2.0 would just be parasitic.
The thing that was overwhelmingly annoying in this thread, and that, as a whole, appears to absent in the victory (which is nice) was the horrendous sense of arrogance (on both sides, but more so for purely colorless) that their side was right. The one thing I've made sure to do, in every one of these arguments (the ones listed in my previous post) is point out that stating "this is true" and "your wrong" without proof is not the way to discuss things, and on the tail end of it, even if you were right, that contribution was worthless.
In much the same way, saying purely colorless was always the only way it could have gone is, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest. Yes, there were ideas that weren't possible, with people fervently standing in their corners anyway, but in the end snow had merits and no fundamental problems (except maybe parasitism, which Wizards has done before.)
Take all this with a grain of salt though. I don't think you were being that bad in comparison to some of the other people in this thread. I'm simply trying to describe why your reply may have come off as "smug".
Bolded the most smug thing I've read in this entire thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
In no way was I trying to be smug with that comment. I fully concede that there were people being arrogant on both sides. All I meant by that was, because of the fact that more people were arguing for purely colorless, more people were also being arrogant about it (It's hard to gauge proportionally which side was worse, given the difficulty in accurately gauging size. I'd guess proportionally both sides were as bad as each other.)
Oh c'mon Benalicious Hero, it's not about being smug or not. If anything has taught us about assumptions and/or educated guesses ever since we learn how to do/make things, it was always gonna be Occam's Razor.
WotC is making a universal game for folks around the world. The game cannot be made more complex than it already is. 5 colors is already hard to handle, let alone a 6th, or some game-sweeping change that will alter the way we play. The only path Magic can grow is to make it simpler, not harder. How else would Magic reach the stars, as the biggest card game today?
Like I said, 5/5 for effort. But if there's one thing psychology taught us, it's that you might have conditioned yourself to the fact that your prerogative was absolute and you willing to dig deeper to defend yourself, at any cost. One thing we know with a deep hole is that it's harder to get out from.
If anyone just stop and think of the bigger picture; and no, Magic isn't created for only U.S citizens, isn't just for big, fat, smelly fanboys who love boob armor. Magic is for the young, the old, the new, the experienced. Does not take sides into gender, or race, or color. We've become a global game, a global audience to reach out. Your wanting the game to reach supposed new heights, and the methodology to reach them does not match with the viewpoints of the world.
We need Magic to become more layman. And the sooner you realized this, the sooner you leave that hole.
I could be wrong about things the next day. But if I use how WotC would think of Magic globally, it might help a little more than you think.
Bahahaha I agree with you, but man you sound like a huge douche.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whenever someone claims to hate blue I automatically assume they're a bad player.
In no way was I trying to be smug with that comment. I fully concede that there were people being arrogant on both sides. All I meant by that was, because of the fact that more people were arguing for purely colorless, more people were also being arrogant about it (It's hard to gauge proportionally which side was worse, given the difficulty in accurately gauging size. I'd guess proportionally both sides were as bad as each other.)
See, you're at it again. Note how the part where you actually say that both sides were being smug is hidden off to the side, in parenthesis, and contradicts the subject part of your statement. And that it is a fact that one side was more smug, but you'd only guess that both sides could have been just as bad.
If it seems like one side was being more arrogant, even though the people tied to it likely had next to to no communication with each other, it is more likely because you were on the other side. It is easy to see someone who disagrees with you as being smug and arrogant and yourself and those agreeing with you as calm and civilized.
But, meh, this is getting really off topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
See, you're at it again. Note how the part where you actually say that both sides were being smug is hidden off to the side, in parenthesis, and contradicts the subject part of your statement. And that it is a fact that one side was more smug, but you'd only guess that both sides could have been just as bad.
He's not contradicting himself. He's suggesting that an equal percentage/proportion of people were arrogant, and that one side had more total people on it. Thus that side would have a higher total number of arrogant people. Though I agree with your statement about perceptual biases, so I won't try to make any more general statements about the subject. Instead I would encourage everyone to try to remain civil, and refrain from gloating too much or being too salty.
See, you're at it again. Note how the part where you actually say that both sides were being smug is hidden off to the side, in parenthesis, and contradicts the subject part of your statement. And that it is a fact that one side was more smug, but you'd only guess that both sides could have been just as bad.
He's not contradicting himself. He's suggesting that an equal percentage/proportion of people were arrogant, and that one side had more total people on it. Thus that side would have a higher total number of arrogant people. Though I agree with your statement about perceptual biases, so I won't try to make any more general statements about the subject. Instead I would encourage everyone to try to remain civil, and refrain from gloating too much or being too salty.
Is there an actual count going on, or is this anecdotal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
Is there an actual count going on, or is this anecdotal?
Does it really matter? He felt a higher amount of arrogance from the other side. He's suggesting it may be just the higher total number of people on the other side, and you're attributing it to a perceptual bias that's normal in arguments. Both are relatively natural, inoffensive, and overall blameless explanations. I'm not sure what an attempt at an accurate count would even achieve.
The practical use of Wastes will be Limited and Commander, almost guaranteed. As you said, we have tons of better ways to produce Colorless, because that has been, historically, a less valuable form of mana. Now with Colorless requirements, all of those cards now are slightly more useful when played with cards like Kozilek.
But will Wizards keep printing "colorless matters" cards?
Although it makes sense in the Eldrazi's case it is going to be though flavor wise to make it work in other planes.
Just my 2 cents, I want to see how it goes.
Well, I wouldn't expect to see it used on a plane like Ravnica, but any artifact heavy block could easily use it. And that should be just fine, not something to be a permanent part of every magic set from now on, but still something recurring quite frequently.
Indeed. I imagine it'll be used where/when it makes sense. I imagine it'll be used infrequently. Personally, I don't think it'll be used that often for Artifacts. I'm trying to envision an artifact infused with Colorless mana, and it doesn't make much flavourful difference than just a generic cost Artifact. I could actually see this restriction put more on Enchantments.
If Ugin starts becoming a main player in the Multiverse(read: We get more Ugin spells), or things other than Eldrazi/Ugin start manifesting Colorless mana, than it'll be more common. I just don't think that'll happen though.
Yeah, I imagine it will be something that pops up in small numbers from time to time, like hybrid mana, but probably even less frequent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
I find new Kozi already abusive being cast without waste mana. Can't wait for mono green and others beating me in head with him and countering my spells, yay! I really hope they don't print a lot of other powerful spells like him in the future. As Shinquickman mentions, there is just way too much mana support in older lands and artifacts now for me to feel comfortable with a slew of powerful 'colourless matters' spells.
The practical use of Wastes will be Limited and Commander, almost guaranteed. As you said, we have tons of better ways to produce Colorless, because that has been, historically, a less valuable form of mana. Now with Colorless requirements, all of those cards now are slightly more useful when played with cards like Kozilek.
Well theres still a chance. On a practical basis, its guaranteed to have a place in limited and commander, and for strictly-worse basics they thematically represent the eldrazi stripping the land of its colored mana- they'd have a vorthos explanation for existing in a post-apocalyptic state to show "hey these eldrazi dudes are really threatening the rest of the universe", while the cards themselves are intentionally useless. But theres still that chance they could have a wastes-matters theme beyond just colorless mana costs. I'd be surprised if we didn't see some cards that tutored out wastes from your deck. Given that Wastes are strictly worse basics than pretty much most every other land, you could give them more powerful ramp cards like super-harrow or crop rotation or STE that only fetches wastes. Would wastes be unplayable in standard if we got support like kodama's reach effect that cost <><> and fetched two wastes?
However, for there to be cards that care about Wastes, they would have to have a basic land type. Because Wastes lack this, there really can't be "Wastes matter" cards. Still, cards like Rampant Growth and Natural Connection can still get Wastes.
The real strange thing to me is Wastes lack of a basic land type. I presume it is for unseen power-level reasons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Host of "Do I Still Love It?" - The Nostalgia Podcast where comedians re-watch the films they remember loving as children to see if they still love them now that they're grown up.
Commander Decks: WBRQueen Marchesa's Powerful FriendsRBW URArjun, Mindmoil SphinxRU GFreyalise and the ElvesG GROmnath, Ramping to RageRG UBaral, Chef of CounterspellsU
However, for there to be cards that care about Wastes, they would have to have a basic land type. Because Wastes lack this, there really can't be "Wastes matter" cards. Still, cards like Rampant Growth and Natural Connection can still get Wastes.
The real strange thing to me is Wastes lack of a basic land type. I presume it is for unseen power-level reasons.
How about this?
Wastewalker1{<>}
Creature - Eldrazi Drone (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may search your library for a card named Wastes and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
1/1
The reason wastes doesn't have a basic land type is that it solves a problem that prevented the fabled Barry's Land from ever seeing print- if a new basic land type was added, it would make a functional change to old cards that cared about basic land types like Moonbow Illusionist, Coalition Victory, etc. It changes how these old cards work even if you don't use the new cards. This was too onerous to ever justify a new basic land type, hence the idea was canned.
But this template gets around all the mess. Its simply a card with the supertypes "Land" and "Basic", no subtypes, and the rules text "T: Add {<>} to your mana pool". Since theres nothing in the rules to stop a basic land from having explicit rules text, this makes it work just fine- other basic lands like islands and swamps have no rules text, their mana ability is provided implicitly from its subtype, but wastes has explicit abilities like all the other non-basic lands, and the 'basic' supertype.
The problem this variation poses is that the land sucks and is strictly worse than so many basics, and hence theres little reason for it to see print at all- why create such a dramatic new basic land if its going to be mostly unplayable? And apparently its being justified for EDH potential and thematic grounds alone. So not the best solution in the world, but workable
However, for there to be cards that care about Wastes, they would have to have a basic land type. Because Wastes lack this, there really can't be "Wastes matter" cards. Still, cards like Rampant Growth and Natural Connection can still get Wastes.
Technically, they can still do "Wastes matters" cards, just in the same less elegant way that they can do any specific card (search your library for a card named Wastes).
The real strange thing to me is Wastes lack of a basic land type. I presume it is for unseen power-level reasons.
They've considered a sixth basic land type (dubbed "Barry's Land") in both Domain blocks, but decided against it both times (and a third time now I suppose). I think you're right about it being a power level thing - it would certainly power up most Domain cards like Tribal Flames (though it actually nerfs Coalition Victory).
This has been explained quite a few times already in the thread, but here it is again.
The <><> means those two specific mana HAVE to be paid with colorless. The rest can be paid with ANY mana.
Colorless Mana and Generic Mana Costs are not the same thing.
I've gotten pretty used to arguing on the wrong side of these things, like "Kiora's not gonna be on Theros" and "Tarkir is not wedge world", or rather, telling people to stop saying that it's obvious when it's not. I've always been humble (or tried to be) when I've turned out to be arguing for people to hold back, and this time will not be an exception.
Well done, team purely colorless!
On the other hand, while I felt that it was far from clear what was true, and argued to the bitter end for team snow, I must admit I prefer this from a gameplay point of view, so I'm not to fussed by being wrong.
EDIT: I do, however, think it's dumb that this change happened midblock. Having things in limited with different templates will annoy me to no end...
Though many are missing the point, are you teaching players with a mix of old and new cards? If you are then I think we've encountered the biggest problem with your teaching method.
I heard that. The lack of symmetry is gonna bug me bigtime. Shoulda been a thing form the start of BFZ
Everyone should learn from this
So most of the "utility" lands we had before, such as Blighted lands, tap for colorless. Before these ♦ costs came around, colorless mana was (almost) always worse than colored mana when it comes to spending it, and thus you had to watch out to make sure you didn't have too many of those. But now... that's not always the case anymore, as it seems like these actually want you to play with those lands... not sure what this means for future lands.
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
WotC is making a universal game for folks around the world. The game cannot be made more complex than it already is. 5 colors is already hard to handle, let alone a 6th, or some game-sweeping change that will alter the way we play. The only path Magic can grow is to make it simpler, not harder. How else would Magic reach the stars, as the biggest card game today?
Like I said, 5/5 for effort. But if there's one thing psychology taught us, it's that you might have conditioned yourself to the fact that your prerogative was absolute and you willing to dig deeper to defend yourself, at any cost. One thing we know with a deep hole is that it's harder to get out from.
If anyone just stop and think of the bigger picture; and no, Magic isn't created for only U.S citizens, isn't just for big, fat, smelly fanboys who love boob armor. Magic is for the young, the old, the new, the experienced. Does not take sides into gender, or race, or color. We've become a global game, a global audience to reach out. Your wanting the game to reach supposed new heights, and the methodology to reach them does not match with the viewpoints of the world.
We need Magic to become more layman. And the sooner you realized this, the sooner you leave that hole.
I could be wrong about things the next day. But if I use how WotC would think of Magic globally, it might help a little more than you think.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
The thing that was overwhelmingly annoying in this thread, and that, as a whole, appears to absent in the victory (which is nice) was the horrendous sense of arrogance (on both sides, but more so for purely colorless) that their side was right. The one thing I've made sure to do, in every one of these arguments (the ones listed in my previous post) is point out that stating "this is true" and "your wrong" without proof is not the way to discuss things, and on the tail end of it, even if you were right, that contribution was worthless.
In much the same way, saying purely colorless was always the only way it could have gone is, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest. Yes, there were ideas that weren't possible, with people fervently standing in their corners anyway, but in the end snow had merits and no fundamental problems (except maybe parasitism, which Wizards has done before.)
Take all this with a grain of salt though. I don't think you were being that bad in comparison to some of the other people in this thread. I'm simply trying to describe why your reply may have come off as "smug".
Bolded the most smug thing I've read in this entire thread.
Bahahaha I agree with you, but man you sound like a huge douche.
See, you're at it again. Note how the part where you actually say that both sides were being smug is hidden off to the side, in parenthesis, and contradicts the subject part of your statement. And that it is a fact that one side was more smug, but you'd only guess that both sides could have been just as bad.
If it seems like one side was being more arrogant, even though the people tied to it likely had next to to no communication with each other, it is more likely because you were on the other side. It is easy to see someone who disagrees with you as being smug and arrogant and yourself and those agreeing with you as calm and civilized.
But, meh, this is getting really off topic.
He's not contradicting himself. He's suggesting that an equal percentage/proportion of people were arrogant, and that one side had more total people on it. Thus that side would have a higher total number of arrogant people. Though I agree with your statement about perceptual biases, so I won't try to make any more general statements about the subject. Instead I would encourage everyone to try to remain civil, and refrain from gloating too much or being too salty.
Is there an actual count going on, or is this anecdotal?
Does it really matter? He felt a higher amount of arrogance from the other side. He's suggesting it may be just the higher total number of people on the other side, and you're attributing it to a perceptual bias that's normal in arguments. Both are relatively natural, inoffensive, and overall blameless explanations. I'm not sure what an attempt at an accurate count would even achieve.
Indeed. I imagine it'll be used where/when it makes sense. I imagine it'll be used infrequently. Personally, I don't think it'll be used that often for Artifacts. I'm trying to envision an artifact infused with Colorless mana, and it doesn't make much flavourful difference than just a generic cost Artifact. I could actually see this restriction put more on Enchantments.
If Ugin starts becoming a main player in the Multiverse(read: We get more Ugin spells), or things other than Eldrazi/Ugin start manifesting Colorless mana, than it'll be more common. I just don't think that'll happen though.
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
Well theres still a chance. On a practical basis, its guaranteed to have a place in limited and commander, and for strictly-worse basics they thematically represent the eldrazi stripping the land of its colored mana- they'd have a vorthos explanation for existing in a post-apocalyptic state to show "hey these eldrazi dudes are really threatening the rest of the universe", while the cards themselves are intentionally useless. But theres still that chance they could have a wastes-matters theme beyond just colorless mana costs. I'd be surprised if we didn't see some cards that tutored out wastes from your deck. Given that Wastes are strictly worse basics than pretty much most every other land, you could give them more powerful ramp cards like super-harrow or crop rotation or STE that only fetches wastes. Would wastes be unplayable in standard if we got support like kodama's reach effect that cost <><> and fetched two wastes?
The real strange thing to me is Wastes lack of a basic land type. I presume it is for unseen power-level reasons.
Commander Decks:
WBRQueen Marchesa's Powerful FriendsRBW
URArjun, Mindmoil SphinxRU
GFreyalise and the ElvesG
GROmnath, Ramping to RageRG
UBaral, Chef of CounterspellsU
How about this?
Wastewalker 1{<>}
Creature - Eldrazi Drone (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may search your library for a card named Wastes and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
1/1
The reason wastes doesn't have a basic land type is that it solves a problem that prevented the fabled Barry's Land from ever seeing print- if a new basic land type was added, it would make a functional change to old cards that cared about basic land types like Moonbow Illusionist, Coalition Victory, etc. It changes how these old cards work even if you don't use the new cards. This was too onerous to ever justify a new basic land type, hence the idea was canned.
But this template gets around all the mess. Its simply a card with the supertypes "Land" and "Basic", no subtypes, and the rules text "T: Add {<>} to your mana pool". Since theres nothing in the rules to stop a basic land from having explicit rules text, this makes it work just fine- other basic lands like islands and swamps have no rules text, their mana ability is provided implicitly from its subtype, but wastes has explicit abilities like all the other non-basic lands, and the 'basic' supertype.
The problem this variation poses is that the land sucks and is strictly worse than so many basics, and hence theres little reason for it to see print at all- why create such a dramatic new basic land if its going to be mostly unplayable? And apparently its being justified for EDH potential and thematic grounds alone. So not the best solution in the world, but workable
Technically, they can still do "Wastes matters" cards, just in the same less elegant way that they can do any specific card (search your library for a card named Wastes).
They've considered a sixth basic land type (dubbed "Barry's Land") in both Domain blocks, but decided against it both times (and a third time now I suppose). I think you're right about it being a power level thing - it would certainly power up most Domain cards like Tribal Flames (though it actually nerfs Coalition Victory).