I personally hope that they don't make enemy tango in favor of lands that will tap for colorless mana as well. Filter land reprint would be cool but extending the horizon canopy cycle would be great.
Just like people said when the expedition breakdown was originally announced for BFZ...
Oath has 20 expeditions.
10 will be creature lands, as that 10set will be completed in BFZ, and it fits the going theme of having some cards in the set proper as expeditions.
10 will be filters, because modern.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Well... alright, if this is real, here comes the large wave of incoming errata...
(And I now expect to see new Eldrazi Scion tokens in OGW instead of reusing the BFZ ones.)
It is not really "errata" because it doesn't change what the cards did. We don't call it "errata" when Cryptic Command was reprinted with the bullet points instead of the semicolons. This is the same thing - the card is exactly the same, but is printed in a more clear manner.
Why is everybody reffering to manlands as being only 10 ? Aren't treetop village and the 4 others from Urza's Legacy manlands too or I'm missing something ?
True there are many man lands.
But because the 2 color man lands are in the new block it makes sense they print the 5 new and 5 Worldwake ones that match the set.
Happy to see Filters coming back, hopefully prices wont be tooo crazy but they probably will be.
Why is everybody reffering to manlands as being only 10 ? Aren't treetop village and the 4 others from Urza's Legacy manlands too or I'm missing something ?
They're manlands, but in the context of this thread people are specifically referring to the allied colored ones from Worldwake and the new five in BFZ block.
URGImperial AnimarGRU BRGProssh, Tokenmaker of KherGRB WURNarset NostalgicRUW UBR"I like your deck better" JelevaRBU UBlue BraidsU GAzusa, Lost but RampingG
WUHanna, Pillowfort's NavigatorUW WBRAleshacratsBRW UBRGrixis Pew PewRBU URGYasova the ThreateningGRU BGGlissa the ArticiferGB WUSygg MerfolkUW RSquee, Value NabobR
It seems Mystic Gate will be printed as expedition land, but I dont know if is fake or not, It seems fake to me because the uncolored simbol is the new one instead of the old normal one of the original card.
I think it's real. It looks real. <> is the new colorless mana symbol that we'll see from here on out on cards that generate colorless mana and this card proves it.
It's doubtful it'll be in the OGW set as a normal card - just part of the expedition.
I think that there would need to be hybrid mana in the set for filter lands to show up. Also, playing 5 color decks would be INSANELY easy if all 10 filter lands were in Standard -- or even just five of them -- along with the fetchable duals.
I see, thanks for the answer guys.
But is there any reason other than "we have two color manlands in BFZ" to consider only the two color manlands in reprints ?
IMO Lavaclaw Reaches doesn't see more play than Treetop Village and isn't worthy to be reprinted with an expendition foil art fancy version
At a guess, but I think a mono-color land just isn't as "appealing" as a dual land. They want the secondary market value of the Expeditions to be as high as possible, and as nice as some of the single color creature lands are, ones with dual land abilities are going to stand out more.
---------------------------
On another note, I'm growing more and more convinced that WOTC is intentionally leaking these and monitoring the forums like this so they know exactly what questions to put in the FAQ that I'm sure will be published on the Mothership later this month. There's a lot of confusion over how <> will work, questions I think are mainly a result of this distinction not being made since the beginning of the game but once put in use will become clear.
Wow, you guys are so dumb; it's sooo obvious the reprint cycle is going to be:
10 filterlands
5 enemy tango lands
5 allied wedge homelands lands (since they need to be errata'd with <>)
C'mon some of you, stop hyping colorless lands unnecessarily. It doesn't really make them more or less powerful. You mean people haven't been tapping said lands for mana, ever? Oh lord... It hasn't changed functionally. Colorless are still colorless.
It does make lands that tap for colorless more powerful though. Take for instance, if you had a Mountain and a Battlefield Forge, you could play a card that cost 1R or <>R. You could not pay the latter if you had only a Mountain and a Cinder Glade in play, however. So for decks that utilize cards with <>, it makes the lands that produce <> more functional, i.e. more powerful. Sure, we've been tapping 1 producing lands forever, but they have functionally only been used for generic costs. Now they will be used for colorless costs, making them equivalent to producing an additional "color." In this sense, Battlefield Forge becomes a comes-into-play-untapped tri-land.
Let me ask some questions for those who are trying to
argue that some lands, i.e. pain lands, just became
"more powerful".
Did all colored producing lands become "more powerful"
when gold cards were made?
Do you remember when people wondered why "dual lands"
were printed? Maybe you didn't play that long ago.
How about when "Force of Will" was a card left in the
dregs stack at drafts?
Here's the thing. Either it's true, but totally what
happens every set. It's completely with precedence.
Just read Maro's article on "bad cards" ...
Or, it's basically "untrue". They didn't get more
"powerful" in any meaningful way.
To play a pain land will HELP you hit your colorless
necessary cards, ...of course it does. But it still
pings you when you need that red or green mana it makes.
That is, simply put, you wouldn't put it in a red/green
(non-colorless) deck. And it hurts the deck build in
exactly the same way that splashing white for "path" or
"swords" would.
Again, at best there is a nanometer of power "shift".
And, even if it is greater, this is nothing new to a game
with 20 years of cards.
Note that, if this is true, Wastes doesn't perfectly fit within the rules as currently written, which means some changes will need to be made for Wastes to actually tap for mana.
No problem there. The same rules that apply for a textless Cryptic Command will apply for a textless Wastes.
108.1. Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be
found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.
The Oracle text for Wastes and the printed normal Wastes will have the rules text "{T}: Add {C} to your mana pool."
Also this brings a thought to mind how late in the R&D process must they have come upon the idea of <> that it didn't get included in BFZ?
Or maybe they wanted to explore different methods of making colorless matter in the two sets to show how the different lineages are evolving in different ways. Changing colorless mana producers in BFZ would distract from devoid and reveal the change before it was important to the set. My wild speculation is that OGW is going to have little or no devoid and Eldrazi will nearly all be either generic mana cost or geric mana with colorless cost.
Or it'll simply be covered by a new hypothetical rule that a basic land with no type taps for C. So even a non-full-art Wastes simply has a big <> on it the way a basic land of type Forest just has a big G on it.
Wow, you guys are so dumb; it's sooo obvious the reprint cycle is going to be:
10 filterlands
5 enemy tango lands
5 allied wedge homelands lands (since they need to be errata'd with <>)
C'mon some of you, stop hyping colorless lands unnecessarily. It doesn't really make them more or less powerful. You mean people haven't been tapping said lands for mana, ever? Oh lord... It hasn't changed functionally. Colorless are still colorless.
It does make lands that tap for colorless more powerful though. Take for instance, if you had a Mountain and a Battlefield Forge, you could play a card that cost 1R or <>R. You could not pay the latter if you had only a Mountain and a Cinder Glade in play, however. So for decks that utilize cards with <>, it makes the lands that produce <> more functional, i.e. more powerful. Sure, we've been tapping 1 producing lands forever, but they have functionally only been used for generic costs. Now they will be used for colorless costs, making them equivalent to producing an additional "color." In this sense, Battlefield Forge becomes a comes-into-play-untapped tri-land.
Let me ask some questions for those who are trying to
argue that some lands, i.e. pain lands, just became
"more powerful".
-trimmed for space-
The issue with the painlands is that over the years they had been become outclassed by all the other dual cycles (the shocks, the filters, etc) to the point where they were still printed at rare, but could be found for a few dollars each. By codifying the idea of a colorless tribe, they've simply managed to regain some of their former ranking. If you're running strictly R/G, then there are better options than the painlands, but if you want to run R/G/C, now the painlands have a little more usefulness to them (while the filter lands also have the option to tap for <>, they can't make a color on the first turn like the painlands).
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
Or it'll simply be covered by a new hypothetical rule that a basic land with no type taps for C. So even a non-full-art Wastes simply has a big <> on it the way a basic land of type Forest just has a big G on it.
That's a poor hypothetical rule, since it means Urborg hoses Wastes.
But it also allows cards to become a virtual Wastes by removing a basic land type from a basic land.
And in Commander it'd have no effect anyway because trying to generate black mana from your Urborg'd Wastes would just turn it right back into <> since colored mana outside your commander's color identity becomes <>.
My best guess is 10 filterlands and 10 fetch lands (again) with new art, perhaps specific to Kozilek.
My reasoning:
1. It makes sense to keep it a full cycle of 10.
2. Wizards wants to keep the value of the expeditions high.
3. Painlands are low value and have plane specific names.
4. Fast lands are only a cycle 5.
5. It seems likely enemy battle lands aren't in Oath, so they (currently) would also be a cycle of 5.
6. Manlands seem too wordy.
Checklands are also a possibility if they don't care that much about #2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
On another note, I'm growing more and more convinced that WOTC is intentionally leaking these and monitoring the forums like this so they know exactly what questions to put in the FAQ that I'm sure will be published on the Mothership later this month. There's a lot of confusion over how <> will work, questions I think are mainly a result of this distinction not being made since the beginning of the game but once put in use will become clear.
Yes, because WOTC doesn't have market research or testing groups or anything like that.
Come on.
Edit: Also, how many questions could be raised about this mechanic? 100% of the questions are because the mechanic wasn't explained with the spoilers.
If they spoiled Wastes and said "This is the new colorless mana symbol. Some costs can only be paid with colorless mana now. GENERIC mana in costs is unchanged" there would be no confusion.
But it also allows cards to become a virtual Wastes by removing a basic land type from a basic land.
And in Commander it'd have no effect anyway because trying to generate black mana from your Urborg'd Wastes would just turn it right back into <> since colored mana outside your commander's color identity becomes <>.
1) I don't care about Commander, that format is silly.
2) They can easily say "Target basic land becomes a colorless Wastes basic land with 'T: Add <> to your mana pool.'" rather than "Target basic land loses all basic land types." since the second one requires you to know the rule that a basic land with no types is a Wastes while the first tells you exactly what it does.
But it also allows cards to become a virtual Wastes by removing a basic land type from a basic land.
And in Commander it'd have no effect anyway because trying to generate black mana from your Urborg'd Wastes would just turn it right back into <> since colored mana outside your commander's color identity becomes <>.
1) I don't care about Commander, that format is silly.
2) They can easily say "Target basic land becomes a colorless Wastes basic land with 'T: Add <> to your mana pool.'" rather than "Target basic land loses all basic land types." since the second one requires you to know the rule that a basic land with no types is a Wastes while the first tells you exactly what it does.
They can't say that because that would mean nothing. Wastes is not a basic land type, on purpose. So 'turning a card into a Wastes' is meaningless.
It could say 'Target basic land loses all land types. (It loses its mana abilities and now has "T: Add C to your mana pool.")
A bit of reminder text can go a long ways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oath has 20 expeditions.
10 will be creature lands, as that 10set will be completed in BFZ, and it fits the going theme of having some cards in the set proper as expeditions.
10 will be filters, because modern.
Twitter
It is not really "errata" because it doesn't change what the cards did. We don't call it "errata" when Cryptic Command was reprinted with the bullet points instead of the semicolons. This is the same thing - the card is exactly the same, but is printed in a more clear manner.
Check out Odds//Ends - My articles on Quirky Cards and Oddball Builds
Long-time PucaTrade member and sometime author. Send me cards!
Currently playing Knight of the Reliquary - Retreat to Coralhelm Combo
True there are many man lands.
But because the 2 color man lands are in the new block it makes sense they print the 5 new and 5 Worldwake ones that match the set.
Happy to see Filters coming back, hopefully prices wont be tooo crazy but they probably will be.
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
They're manlands, but in the context of this thread people are specifically referring to the allied colored ones from Worldwake and the new five in BFZ block.
Living End Contributor and Enthusiast
Come Pucatrade with me
Rules Advisor
Modern: BRGLiving EndGRB
Legacy: UBGShardless BUGGBU
BRGProssh, Tokenmaker of KherGRB
WURNarset NostalgicRUW
UBR"I like your deck better" JelevaRBU
UBlue BraidsU
GAzusa, Lost but RampingG
WBRAleshacratsBRW
UBRGrixis Pew PewRBU
URGYasova the ThreateningGRU
BGGlissa the ArticiferGB
WUSygg MerfolkUW
RSquee, Value NabobR
I red this http://www.attackphase.net/Mystic-Gate,-carta-expeditions-en-Oath-of-the-Gatewatch-n42.html
It seems Mystic Gate will be printed as expedition land, but I dont know if is fake or not, It seems fake to me because the uncolored simbol is the new one instead of the old normal one of the original card.
What do you think?
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
It's doubtful it'll be in the OGW set as a normal card - just part of the expedition.
At a guess, but I think a mono-color land just isn't as "appealing" as a dual land. They want the secondary market value of the Expeditions to be as high as possible, and as nice as some of the single color creature lands are, ones with dual land abilities are going to stand out more.
---------------------------
On another note, I'm growing more and more convinced that WOTC is intentionally leaking these and monitoring the forums like this so they know exactly what questions to put in the FAQ that I'm sure will be published on the Mothership later this month. There's a lot of confusion over how <> will work, questions I think are mainly a result of this distinction not being made since the beginning of the game but once put in use will become clear.
10 filterlands
5 enemy tango lands
5 allied wedge homelands lands (since they need to be errata'd with <>)
http://magiccards.info/query?q=t:land e:homelands&v=card&s=cname
Full art Aysen Abbey makes me want to touch myself.
Want to be a better Magic player? Read the rulings forum and check out the comprehensive rules!
And the Homelands trilands won't need errata any more than all the other colorless generators in the game. Only the first ability is changing.
Let me ask some questions for those who are trying to
argue that some lands, i.e. pain lands, just became
"more powerful".
Did all colored producing lands become "more powerful"
when gold cards were made?
Do you remember when people wondered why "dual lands"
were printed? Maybe you didn't play that long ago.
How about when "Force of Will" was a card left in the
dregs stack at drafts?
Here's the thing. Either it's true, but totally what
happens every set. It's completely with precedence.
Just read Maro's article on "bad cards" ...
Or, it's basically "untrue". They didn't get more
"powerful" in any meaningful way.
To play a pain land will HELP you hit your colorless
necessary cards, ...of course it does. But it still
pings you when you need that red or green mana it makes.
That is, simply put, you wouldn't put it in a red/green
(non-colorless) deck. And it hurts the deck build in
exactly the same way that splashing white for "path" or
"swords" would.
Again, at best there is a nanometer of power "shift".
And, even if it is greater, this is nothing new to a game
with 20 years of cards.
found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.
The Oracle text for Wastes and the printed normal Wastes will have the rules text "{T}: Add {C} to your mana pool."
Or maybe they wanted to explore different methods of making colorless matter in the two sets to show how the different lineages are evolving in different ways. Changing colorless mana producers in BFZ would distract from devoid and reveal the change before it was important to the set. My wild speculation is that OGW is going to have little or no devoid and Eldrazi will nearly all be either generic mana cost or geric mana with colorless cost.
All the folk having fun at Homelands expense needs to
admit that the lands have ALREADY been cometically updated
to... T: 1
See, it has the old language. of "add colorless to your
mana pool".
It's just another cometic update. Not unlike a new cardframe
it changes nothing.
The issue with the painlands is that over the years they had been become outclassed by all the other dual cycles (the shocks, the filters, etc) to the point where they were still printed at rare, but could be found for a few dollars each. By codifying the idea of a colorless tribe, they've simply managed to regain some of their former ranking. If you're running strictly R/G, then there are better options than the painlands, but if you want to run R/G/C, now the painlands have a little more usefulness to them (while the filter lands also have the option to tap for <>, they can't make a color on the first turn like the painlands).
sorry if it was already mentioned, but at least not in the first page.
THE ART IS NOT NEW
it is official and has been in artofmtg.com since the beggining of bfz spoiler season (in a high enough resolution for fakers)
It has been mentioned and taken into account. I don't know if this is real, I hope so, but there's no need to be rude.
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
That's a poor hypothetical rule, since it means Urborg hoses Wastes.
And in Commander it'd have no effect anyway because trying to generate black mana from your Urborg'd Wastes would just turn it right back into <> since colored mana outside your commander's color identity becomes <>.
My reasoning:
1. It makes sense to keep it a full cycle of 10.
2. Wizards wants to keep the value of the expeditions high.
3. Painlands are low value and have plane specific names.
4. Fast lands are only a cycle 5.
5. It seems likely enemy battle lands aren't in Oath, so they (currently) would also be a cycle of 5.
6. Manlands seem too wordy.
Checklands are also a possibility if they don't care that much about #2.
Yes, because WOTC doesn't have market research or testing groups or anything like that.
Come on.
Edit: Also, how many questions could be raised about this mechanic? 100% of the questions are because the mechanic wasn't explained with the spoilers.
If they spoiled Wastes and said "This is the new colorless mana symbol. Some costs can only be paid with colorless mana now. GENERIC mana in costs is unchanged" there would be no confusion.
Twitter
1) I don't care about Commander, that format is silly.
2) They can easily say "Target basic land becomes a colorless Wastes basic land with 'T: Add <> to your mana pool.'" rather than "Target basic land loses all basic land types." since the second one requires you to know the rule that a basic land with no types is a Wastes while the first tells you exactly what it does.
I can totally see Aysen Abbey in Mul Daya. Even the Eldrazi would want to destroy it! Let's not rule anything out quite yet.
Check out Odds//Ends - My articles on Quirky Cards and Oddball Builds
Long-time PucaTrade member and sometime author. Send me cards!
Currently playing Knight of the Reliquary - Retreat to Coralhelm Combo
They can't say that because that would mean nothing. Wastes is not a basic land type, on purpose. So 'turning a card into a Wastes' is meaningless.
It could say 'Target basic land loses all land types. (It loses its mana abilities and now has "T: Add C to your mana pool.")
A bit of reminder text can go a long ways.