I'm not generally a troll, but I find the continued omission of Damnation to be insanely hilarious so I couldn't help it. I don't know what WotC has against the card, but I find the humour in them not reprinting it to be of much greater value than any reprint could be.
Thanks to someone seeing Death Wind at the prerelease, we have confirmation that Damnation is not in yet another product, and it keeps getting funnier every single time I see it!
If the new format is No Reserved List Legacy, then stock up on Dracos now because Dracosplosion will be literally the only deck worth playing. Oh, you're playing shocks and fetches and I can burn you for 16 on turn 3 with basically zero setup? Well then gg. You didn't deal damage to yourself with your lands? Okay, then I'll sac my tapped lands to Fireblast you for the other 4. And I have Force of Will backup. Because this format is not poorly conceived at all.
Of course, that's not the format because it's an utterly terrible idea. Even the people who had massive enough ******* boners over the idea to create a subreddit dedicated to the format have given up because no onecares.
It is ******* hysterical to me that all the replies in this thread are *****ing about the price. Do you know what this stuff goes for? A set of just the 40 planes from 2012 routinely sells for $80 on ebay. Add the 4 decks from 2012 and it's over $200. The set of JUST the 86 planes is $175 and out of stock on SCG with no copies having been sold on ebay in the past several months, meaning they are genuinely hard to find.
Maybe we can do what, like 3 minutes of research before automatically complaining about everything?
I never thought I would see the day they banned PoK. But they did. It literally dies to every decent removal ever printed including Bolt at 1 mana.
Prophet was essentially a gateway through which value creatures could compete with hardcore combo decks. That door is closed now and combo gets that much better.
If you are playing Lightning Bolt in EDH and it's not a gimmick deck like "mono-red 1 drops" then you are terrible at EDH. That said, I'll give you $1 each for all your Tarmogoyfs because they die to Doom Blade.
Because I am a collector and unable to attend FNM.
You know what its like to spend 3x as much on a card just because of it being an fnm promo over its standard foil e dition?
What's the point of being a collector, when what you're collecting has practically no value? "Congrats on your collection of $1.50 cards that are nigh unplayable". Personally I'd rather a collection of $10 cards that see play, and therefore have a greater chance on increasing in value over time.
Because that's how collecting works. Maybe he wants to collect 1 of every promo card ever printed? I personally collect foil sets, and that means I have collections including a lot of cards that individually aren't worth a Goddamn thing. Foil Trumpet Blast? Oh man! But suddenly when you combine all those cards into a set, you have something that is both of value and has meaning to you (And means I have a foil of every card I'll ever need for EDH, no matter how fringe a card it is).
Foil Clash of Wills may be worth *****, but what is a collection of every FNM promo together worth? And how long has he been doing this? For all we know he's been doing it since FNM first started and he picked up his foil Swords to Plowshares for $5 each.
If you (directed at everyone, not just the person I replied to) are not a collector, I strongly urge you not to make any comments regarding collecting. Best case scenario you are going to come off as ignorant, and worst case scenario you'll make an ass of yourself by accusing collectors of artificially inflating prices (Fun fact: they're not the ones who cause that).
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
It's highly likely that the change in templating didn't make it in time for BFZ, or even more likely, it was meant to be in the 3rd set of BFZ block, or M17, but it was then reworked to be a 2 set block, and no more core sets, so they had to shoehorn it into OGW.
No, that's highly unlikely. They are working 2-3 years in advance. Yes, sometimes there are last minute changes, but those come from development and are related to power level. It is extraordinarily unlikely that they would make a change of this magnitude as a last minute thing that wasn't prepared before BFZ went to print. Like, staggeringly unlikely. This is amost certainly a core mechanic of OGW, and that is not the sort of thing that gets thrown in at the last second. This idea should have been on the table before they were even designing individual cards for BFZ.
I haven't had a laugh this good since I saw that commercial that said 1 in 4 females don't know how to read a pregnancy test.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
Perhaps it you don't have <> you need 2 colourless. This is why we need to wait for the reminder text
People are all over that suggestion, and I have no idea why. As it turns out, {2/<>} would be a viable mana symbol seeing as we've already had {2/B} etc. To create a new mana symbol which is both a new type of mana and also defined as having an alternate cost is beyond insane to me.
I haven't had a laugh this good since I saw that commercial that said 1 in 4 females don't know how to read a pregnancy test.
Anyway for all the people saying <> means this or <> doesn't mean this(myself included) you all need to realize that until wizards formally announces how <> works everything in this thread is completely and utterly baseless speculation. Everyone who is saying that sol ring and mana rocks and wasteland will me errata to say tap for <> need to shut up and wait till wizards announces it.
What we can do however is say "I think this will happen"
I think <> will just mean <> must be paid for by colourless mana. All they have to do is print a couple of commons with that reminder text and that will clear up any confusion. No need for sol ring and wasteland to be errata. Given that they made Blighted lands and mirror pool in the same block and wizards isn't made up of monkeys I think it's pretty safe to assume they don't intend on replacing [mana]1[mana]. But this is speculation. And anyone who says im wrong needs to realize this is speculation and you too are also wrong.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
I think the idea that one diamond is actually two colorless or one eldrazi mana is very plausible. If you look at ulamog from last set, his cost was equal to his power and toughness. Kozilek is supposedly ten but is 12/12 but if both diamonds are two colorless he has a cmc of 12. Not saying that is what it is, just a theory
Actually that's a good point. Don't all 3 original eldrazi and ulamog from BFZ have p/t=cmc? If so it would make sense for <> to be <> or 2. It also explains why mirror pool produces <> and kosileks channeller producers 2
Um, no? Kozilek, Butcher of Truth costs 10 mana and is a 12/12. Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre costs 11 mana for a 10/10. Soooo yeah, they're the same size as they were last time, and last time neither was the same size as their mana cost. Let's pretend you guys both actually checked gatherer before posting your comments and none of this ever happened at all. That's probably best for everyone.
besides clearing the confusion thats comes with the current system and opening up new design space
If someone is confused by colorless and generic mana then there really is no hope for that person to be productive is there?
you basicly just insulted lots of new players
you really shouldnt project one's character onto others.
just cause you are expierenced with the game and have no problem with it, doesnt mean others dont have those problems
there is nothing negative about such a change, only positive stuff, so why are you so against it?
New players aren't confused by this, because new players have never heard of the nearly meaningless abstract concept of "generic mana" that only exists in the comprehensive rules and that no one ever says while playing Magic ever.
And if you're concerned about new players, then <> being treated as essentially a 6th colour is the only option. How will new players feel drafting a format where they have lands that tap for <> and spells that require <>, but also lands like the Blighted lands that say they tap for 1 but actually tap for <>? There are a LOT of ways to generate 1 colourless (or 2) in BFZ. If those are suddenly all errata'ed to tap for <> instead, that hurts new players more than anyone and is a good way to turn them off of Magic forever. Initiating a change of that magnitude in a small set is extremely sloppy, and I'd like to think WotC is a better company than that.
<> does NOT mean colourless and only colourless. Otherwise, we would not see land specifically tapping for <> rather than just 1. The lands tapping for that would serve literally no purpose and cause extra confusion with no benefit.
<> is not replacing normal colourless symbols, otherwise we would not see costs like 8<><>.
Like many others in these threads, you have just proven the point of introducing <> as a new symbol for colorless mana. You seem to think that if <> stood for colorless mana, then 8<><> and 10 would be identical. However, the 8 in Kozileks cost doesn't stand for colorless, it stands for generic mana. The generic mana symbols stay the same (numbers in a grey circle), while colorless mana finally gets its own symbol.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.
Of course, that's not the format because it's an utterly terrible idea. Even the people who had massive enough ******* boners over the idea to create a subreddit dedicated to the format have given up because no onecares.
No value beyond the $175 for the full set of them, sure.
Maybe we can do what, like 3 minutes of research before automatically complaining about everything?
Rishadan Port
Flusterstorm
Jace, the Mind Sculptor
Crop Rotation
Mother of Runes
Won't be reprinted:
Scalding Tarn
Abrupt Decay
Swords to Plowshares
Thoughtseize
Young Pyromancer
If you are playing Lightning Bolt in EDH and it's not a gimmick deck like "mono-red 1 drops" then you are terrible at EDH. That said, I'll give you $1 each for all your Tarmogoyfs because they die to Doom Blade.
Because that's how collecting works. Maybe he wants to collect 1 of every promo card ever printed? I personally collect foil sets, and that means I have collections including a lot of cards that individually aren't worth a Goddamn thing. Foil Trumpet Blast? Oh man! But suddenly when you combine all those cards into a set, you have something that is both of value and has meaning to you (And means I have a foil of every card I'll ever need for EDH, no matter how fringe a card it is).
Foil Clash of Wills may be worth *****, but what is a collection of every FNM promo together worth? And how long has he been doing this? For all we know he's been doing it since FNM first started and he picked up his foil Swords to Plowshares for $5 each.
If you (directed at everyone, not just the person I replied to) are not a collector, I strongly urge you not to make any comments regarding collecting. Best case scenario you are going to come off as ignorant, and worst case scenario you'll make an ass of yourself by accusing collectors of artificially inflating prices (Fun fact: they're not the ones who cause that).
No, that's highly unlikely. They are working 2-3 years in advance. Yes, sometimes there are last minute changes, but those come from development and are related to power level. It is extraordinarily unlikely that they would make a change of this magnitude as a last minute thing that wasn't prepared before BFZ went to print. Like, staggeringly unlikely. This is amost certainly a core mechanic of OGW, and that is not the sort of thing that gets thrown in at the last second. This idea should have been on the table before they were even designing individual cards for BFZ.
People are all over that suggestion, and I have no idea why. As it turns out, {2/<>} would be a viable mana symbol seeing as we've already had {2/B} etc. To create a new mana symbol which is both a new type of mana and also defined as having an alternate cost is beyond insane to me.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
Um, no? Kozilek, Butcher of Truth costs 10 mana and is a 12/12. Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre costs 11 mana for a 10/10. Soooo yeah, they're the same size as they were last time, and last time neither was the same size as their mana cost. Let's pretend you guys both actually checked gatherer before posting your comments and none of this ever happened at all. That's probably best for everyone.
New players aren't confused by this, because new players have never heard of the nearly meaningless abstract concept of "generic mana" that only exists in the comprehensive rules and that no one ever says while playing Magic ever.
And if you're concerned about new players, then <> being treated as essentially a 6th colour is the only option. How will new players feel drafting a format where they have lands that tap for <> and spells that require <>, but also lands like the Blighted lands that say they tap for 1 but actually tap for <>? There are a LOT of ways to generate 1 colourless (or 2) in BFZ. If those are suddenly all errata'ed to tap for <> instead, that hurts new players more than anyone and is a good way to turn them off of Magic forever. Initiating a change of that magnitude in a small set is extremely sloppy, and I'd like to think WotC is a better company than that.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.